Polls 2019-20

Trotsky
Cornell men have not had 13+ first place votes in November since at least 1996.

Thank you, Lori Loughlin, for buying us a couple votes

Like those years of reading the newspaper agate and wasting time trying to see how Cornell basketball did, when you can't remember who they played, and the agate is sorted by the name of the winning team.

osorojo
Cornell's newest ranking saves me a lot of trouble. You have no idea much time I have wasted over 55 years of scrolling down through the rankings.

First rule of Italian driving.

billhoward
Like those years of reading the newspaper agate and wasting time trying to see how Cornell basketball did, when you can't remember who they played, and the agate is sorted by the name of the winning team.

In that case it was simple to infer how they did.

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine College Hockey Poll
Men's Poll (2019-20 Season, Week #8 - Nov. 18)

Rank    School            (First)   Last Week   Record Weeks in Top 15
1 	Minnesota State Univ (19) 488  	T-1 	8-1-1 	8
2 	Cornell University,  (15) 483   4 	6-0-0 	8
3 	University Notre Dame,    413 	3 	8-1-1 	8
4 	University of Denver,     377 	T-1 	8-2-2 	8
5 	Penn State University,    356 	8 	9-2-0 	8
6 	University North Dakota,  342 	9 	8-1-2 	4
7 	University Massachusetts, 271 	5 	7-3-0 	8
8 	Harvard University,       253 	12 	5-0-0 	3
9 	Clarkson University,      233 	7 	8-3-1 	8
10 	Univer Minnesota Duluth,  199 	6 	5-4-1 	8
11 	Ohio State University,    154 	11 	6-3-1 	8
12 	Boston College,           133 	NR 	7-4-0 	6
13 	Providence College,       130 	10 	6-4-2 	8
14 	Northeastern University,   73 	14 	6-4-2 	8
15 	Bowling Green State        40 	NR 	7-4-0 	1

Others Receiving Votes: University of Massachusetts Lowell, 33; 
University of Nebraska Omaha, 29; University of Wisconsin, 19; 
Northern Michigan University, 14; University of Maine, 13; 
Western Michigan University, 12; University of Michigan, 11; 
Quinnipiac University, 4.

Minnesota State hosts AK-Anchorage for two games this upcoming weekend so not likely to give an opening to another team to slip into first in the next poll.

Tom Lento

BearLover
Signs that Harvard and Cornell will regress: the Crimson's shooting percentage (18.2%) is first in the country, and the Big Red's (15.8%) is second. Meanwhile, Harvard's save percentage (96.2%) is far and away number one in the nation. Cornell's (92.6%) is tied for tenth, though that is in line with Galajda's and Cornell's historical save percentages, and so may not regress much if at all.

I don't feel like looking this up for Harvard, but Cornell is absolutely dominating even strength shot attempts thus far. Even vs Clarkson they had a substantial advantage. IIRC the only game where Cornell didn't have a clear edge was game 1 vs MSU (basically even). That shooting percentage probably is unsustainable, but at least it's backed up by measurable signs of possession dominance.

One thing I've always wondered is how much team shooting percentage is a function of luck in college hockey. The talent differentials are much larger in D-I than in the NHL. It's possible Cornell's shooting % is huge in part because the teams they've been playing haven't been very good, so the shooters have had better looks and a lot more time.

I agree that the shot differential so far indicates that Cornell is a very good team. The Red have taken 56% of shot attempts at even strength and 57% of unblocked shot attempts at even strength. Those numbers increase when the game is within a goal. Harvard's metrics, on the other hand, are strikingly awful! Despite having played weak opposition, they are dead last in the country in shot attempt%: 40% at even strength (41% unblocked shot attempts). Those numbers do increase substantially when the game is within a goal: 48% for both shot attempts and unblocked shot attempts. This suggests that Harvard runs up big leads and then takes its foot off the gas, which confounds the numbers. Yet their even strength numbers are literally worst in the country, and their close-game numbers are below average. Very small sample size, but it suggests Harvard may be worse than its record.

Or, if you take the view that shooting percentage is heavily correlated with talent, Harvard's sky-high shooting% might just be indicative of its roster stacked with draft picks and its weak opposition.

Trotsky
Cornell men have not had 13+ first place votes in November since at least 1996.

Huh, I didn't remember the #1 ranking in 2005.

French Rage

Trotsky
Cornell men have not had 13+ first place votes in November since at least 1996.

Huh, I didn't remember the #1 ranking in 2005.

Maybe because it was in the NIT poll?

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine College Hockey Poll
Women's Poll (2019-20 Season, Week #9 - Nov. 19)

Rank    School                (First)     Last Week Record  Weeks in Top 10
1. 	University of Minnesota, (19) 190  	1   12-1-1 	9
2. 	University of Wisconsin,      171 	2   12-1-1 	9
3. 	Cornell University,           146 	3    7-0-1 	9
4. 	Northeastern University,      132 	4   10-1-0 	9
5. 	Clarkson University,          110 	5   10-1-3 	9
6. 	Boston College,                95 	6   10-1-1 	9
7. 	Ohio State University,         77 	7    8-3-3 	9
8. 	Princeton University,          55 	8    7-2-0 	9
9. 	Harvard University,            34      10    5-0-0 	2
10. 	University of Minnesota Duluth,12 	9    7-4-1 	7

Others Receiving Votes: Boston University, 5; Colgate University, 1; 
Mercyhurst University, 1; Robert Morris University, 1.

BearLover

Tom Lento

BearLover
Signs that Harvard and Cornell will regress: the Crimson's shooting percentage (18.2%) is first in the country, and the Big Red's (15.8%) is second. Meanwhile, Harvard's save percentage (96.2%) is far and away number one in the nation. Cornell's (92.6%) is tied for tenth, though that is in line with Galajda's and Cornell's historical save percentages, and so may not regress much if at all.

I don't feel like looking this up for Harvard, but Cornell is absolutely dominating even strength shot attempts thus far. Even vs Clarkson they had a substantial advantage. IIRC the only game where Cornell didn't have a clear edge was game 1 vs MSU (basically even). That shooting percentage probably is unsustainable, but at least it's backed up by measurable signs of possession dominance.

One thing I've always wondered is how much team shooting percentage is a function of luck in college hockey. The talent differentials are much larger in D-I than in the NHL. It's possible Cornell's shooting % is huge in part because the teams they've been playing haven't been very good, so the shooters have had better looks and a lot more time.

I agree that the shot differential so far indicates that Cornell is a very good team. The Red have taken 56% of shot attempts at even strength and 57% of unblocked shot attempts at even strength. Those numbers increase when the game is within a goal. Harvard's metrics, on the other hand, are strikingly awful! Despite having played weak opposition, they are dead last in the country in shot attempt%: 40% at even strength (41% unblocked shot attempts). Those numbers do increase substantially when the game is within a goal: 48% for both shot attempts and unblocked shot attempts. This suggests that Harvard runs up big leads and then takes its foot off the gas, which confounds the numbers. Yet their even strength numbers are literally worst in the country, and their close-game numbers are below average. Very small sample size, but it suggests Harvard may be worse than its record.

Or, if you take the view that shooting percentage is heavily correlated with talent, Harvard's sky-high shooting% might just be indicative of its roster stacked with draft picks and its weak opposition.

Well, given all of this, I take the view that Cornell's numbers mean Cornell is really strong, and Harvard's numbers mean Harvard isn't as strong as their record would indicate, and small sample sizes be damned.

At a glance it appears Cornell has played opponents close until late in the second period. Is this primarily because of Cornell's depth of talent or Cornell's style of play?

osorojo
At a glance it appears Cornell has played opponents close until late in the second period. Is this primarily because of Cornell's depth of talent or Cornell's style of play?

With the exception of Yale, that seems to be the case. I think the depth advantage we have is a big factor.

scoop85

osorojo
At a glance it appears Cornell has played opponents close until late in the second period. Is this primarily because of Cornell's depth of talent or Cornell's style of play?

With the exception of Yale, that seems to be the case. I think the depth advantage we have is a big factor.

Reminds me of the Mankato NCAA game in 2003. Our top two lines didn't score much because Mankato also had a decent top two lines (as they should being in the tourny). But our third and fourth lines ran rampant over theirs, leading to a 5-2 win. It was the ability to run four strong lines that meant a lot.

Anyone think we may move to first place in one or both polls this week as a result of beating stronger teams than the team Minnesota State beat twice?

andyw2100
Anyone think we may move to first place in one or both polls this week as a result of beating stronger teams than the team Minnesota State beat twice?

Too many votes would need to flip for the USCHO poll so I say no for that. For USA Today I’m going to say yes, but that’s a bit of wishful thinking. Minn St crushed Anchorage Friday and handled them easily on Saturday, with more than twice as many shots on net than what Anchorage managed.

JasonN95

andyw2100
Anyone think we may move to first place in one or both polls this week as a result of beating stronger teams than the team Minnesota State beat twice?

Too many votes would need to flip for the USCHO poll so I say no for that. For USA Today I’m going to say yes, but that’s a bit of wishful thinking. Minn St crushed Anchorage Friday and handled them easily on Saturday, with more than twice as many shots on net than what Anchorage managed.

i don't think mankato drops behind us until they lose again regardless of how we do. the only exception is if a a few people notice and credit us for the heater michigan state is on.

andyw2100
Anyone think we may move to first place in one or both polls this week as a result of beating stronger teams than the team Minnesota State beat twice?

I suspect even if we win out through New Year's Day including against an otherwise undefeated Harvard team we will still be behind Mankato until they stumble. That's life in the ECAC. Fine -- use it to our advantage.

Trotsky

andyw2100
Anyone think we may move to first place in one or both polls this week as a result of beating stronger teams than the team Minnesota State beat twice?

I suspect even if we win out through New Year's Day including against an otherwise undefeated Harvard team we will still be behind Mankato until they stumble. That's life in the ECAC. Fine -- use it to our advantage.

Indeed we're still #1 in PWR. If that persists, (it is relatively meaningless until around mid-January when everyone has played enough games in and out of conference) who cares about the polls.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

andyw2100
Anyone think we may move to first place in one or both polls this week as a result of beating stronger teams than the team Minnesota State beat twice?

I suspect even if we win out through New Year's Day including against an otherwise undefeated Harvard team we will still be behind Mankato until they stumble. That's life in the ECAC. Fine -- use it to our advantage.

Indeed we're still #1 in PWR. If that persists, (it is relatively meaningless until around mid-January when everyone has played enough games in and out of conference) who cares about the polls.

...and by mid-Feb, the pollsters pretty much just turn in PWR as their ballot anyway. Stay #1 in PWR and the polls will take care of themselves.

Rankings roundup: How the top 20 teams fared, Nov. 22-23

No. 1 Minnesota State (10-1-1)
11/22/2019 – Alaska Anchorage 1 at No. 1 Minnesota State 7
11/23/2019 – Alaska Anchorage 0 at No. 1 Minnesota State 3

No. 2 Cornell (8-0-0)
11/22/2019 – RV Quinnipiac 1 at No. 2 Cornell 2
11/23/2019 – Princeton 1 at No. 2 Cornell 5

No. 3 Notre Dame (8-2-2)
11/22/2019 – No. 3 Notre Dame 1 at Michigan State 1 (OT)
11/23/2019 – No. 3 Notre Dame 2 at Michigan State 3

No. 4 Denver (9-3-2)
11/22/2019 – No. 20 Western Michigan 2 at No. 4 Denver 1
11/23/2019 – No. 20 Western Michigan 1 at No. 4 Denver 6

No. 5 North Dakota (10-1-2)
11/22/2019 – St. Cloud State 2 at No. 5 North Dakota 4
11/23/2019 – St. Cloud State 1 at No. 5 North Dakota 2 (OT)

No. 6 Penn State (10-3-0)
11/22/2019 – No. 11 Ohio State 4 at No. 6 Penn State 5
11/23/2019 – No. 11 Ohio State 4 at No. 6 Penn State 3

No. 7 Massachusetts (8-3-1)
11/22/2019 – Merrimack 2 at No. 7 Massachusetts 2 (OT)
11/23/2019 – No. 7 Massachusetts 3 at Merrimack 2

No. 8 Clarkson (10-3-1)
11/22/2019 – No. 8 Clarkson 2 at Brown 1 (OT)
11/23/2019 – No. 8 Clarkson 4 at Yale 1

No. 9 Minnesota Duluth (7-4-1)
11/22/2019 – RV Colorado College 3 at No. 9 Minnesota Duluth 4
11/23/2019 – RV Colorado College 0 at No. 9 Minnesota Duluth 5

No. 10 Harvard (6-0-0)
11/22/2019 – No. 10 Harvard 6 at Rensselaer 3

No. 11 Ohio State (7-4-1)
11/22/2019 – No. 11 Ohio State 4 at No. 6 Penn State 5
11/23/2019 No. 11 Ohio State 4 at No. 6 Penn State 3

No. 12 Providence (7-4-3)
11/22/2019 – No. 12 Providence 3 at Connecticut 3 (OT)
11/23/2019 – Connecticut 2 at No. 12 Providence 5

No. 13 Northeastern (8-4-2)
11/22/2019 – RV Maine 2 at No. 13 Northeastern 5
11/23/2019 – RV Maine 2 at No. 13 Northeastern 3

No. 14 Boston College (7-4-0)
Did not play.

No. 15 UMass Lowell (7-3-4)
Did not play.

No. 16 Wisconsin (6-7-1)
11/22/2019 – No. 16 Wisconsin 1 at Minnesota 4
11/23/2019 No. 16 Wisconsin 3 at Minnesota 3 (OT)

No. 17 Bowling Green (8-5-0)
11/22/2019 – Lake Superior State 0 at No. 17 Bowling Green 5
11/23/2019 – Lake Superior State 3 at No. 17 Bowling Green 1

No. 18 Omaha (6-4-2)
11/22/2019 – Miami 3 at No. 18 Omaha 3 (OT)
11/23/2019 – Miami 4 at No. 18 Omaha 1

No. 19 Northern Michigan (7-5-2)
11/22/2019 – No. 19 Northern Michigan 2 at Michigan Tech 3
11/23/2019 – Michigan Tech 3 at No. 19 Northern Michigan 2

No. 20 Western Michigan (7-5-2)
11/22/2019 – No. 20 Western Michigan 2 at No. 4 Denver 1
11/23/2019 – No. 20 Western Michigan 1 at No. 4 Denver 6

RV = Received Votes

OUr RPI on USCHO is over 1.200. Is that even possible? Road win bonus at Clarkson and Michigan State, I guess?

ugarte
OUr RPI on USCHO is over 1.200. Is that even possible? Road win bonus at Clarkson and Michigan State, I guess?

a) a multiplier based on indexing our SAT scores vs. the norm
b) it's the system
c) The Russians Ukrainians hacked in
c1) I thought I typed the R-word, but somehow that's not what's appearing

Still second in USCHO poll.

[www.uscho.com]

We actually lost a couple of first place votes.

andyw2100
Still second in USCHO poll.

[www.uscho.com]

We actually lost a couple of first place votes.

But our vote total went up slightly (948 to 954).

If things keep going as they are, expect North Dakota to be even more of a magnet for voters, not just due to the pedigree, but perceived conference strength. And honestly, probably deserved. The only blemishes on their record (1 loss and 2 ties) have been from Mankato and Denver, both top-5 teams.

If I was Harvard I'd be pretty pissed off.

Trotsky
If I was Harvard I'd be pretty pissed off.

So would I, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the USCHO poll. They've been steadily moving up in the poll for weeks and they've barely played anybody good.

Beeeej

Trotsky
If I was Harvard I'd be pretty pissed off.

So would I, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the USCHO poll. They've been steadily moving up in the poll for weeks and they've barely played anybody good.

In a way it's Harvard's own fault. So far, all 6 of its games have been ECAC. Q (2-3-1, 6-6-1) is the highest-ranked team it's played.

Compare this to Clarkson, which is 5-1 in conference and 10-3-1 overall, with wins over teams like Wisconsin (#6 at the time) and Michigan. Deserved or not, showing you can go toe-to-toe against teams with strong reputations establishes some cred. Similarly, Cornell's sweep of MSU won us some respect, especially now that MSU is showing it's not a pushover.

Swampy

Beeeej

Trotsky
If I was Harvard I'd be pretty pissed off.

So would I, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the USCHO poll. They've been steadily moving up in the poll for weeks and they've barely played anybody good.

In a way it's Harvard's own fault. So far, all 6 of its games have been ECAC. Q (2-3-1, 6-6-1) is the highest-ranked team it's played.

Compare this to Clarkson, which is 5-1 in conference and 10-3-1 overall, with wins over teams like Wisconsin (#6 at the time) and Michigan. Deserved or not, showing you can go toe-to-toe against teams with strong reputations establishes some cred. Similarly, Cornell's sweep of MSU won us some respect, especially now that MSU is showing it's not a pushover.

Pushover or not... those wins will really help us in the end-of-year PWR. Especially if we get 2+ points from Northern Michigan.

Beeeej

Trotsky
If I was Harvard I'd be pretty pissed off.

So would I, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the USCHO poll. They've been steadily moving up in the poll for weeks and they've barely played anybody good.

(1) You can only beat who you have in front of you. (2) They're not just winning they're winning big.

In any case, Lynah East will sort it all out, for a time.

we have BU, the 2 Vegas games, and NM left.. do no worse than 3-2 and hopefully no worse than 4-1 and our OC schedule will look pretty solid

Current NC PWR

11 Michigan State
11 Michigan State
37 BU
13 Ohio State
23 Providence / 31 Army
28 Northern Michigan
28 Northern Michigan

Still at number two in the USA Today Poll too, but tied in number of first place votes with Minnesota State (17 each), and just out of first on total points (491 vs. 494.)

We got close!

Swampy

In a way it's Harvard's own fault. So far, all 6 of its games have been ECAC. Q (2-3-1, 6-6-1) is the highest-ranked team it's played.

Dartmouth currently #16 per CHN’s PWR rating, who Harvard beat in their first game. (I know, ranking vs rating.)

If NMU could split or sweep against Mankato, it would doubly help us, pushing up NMU as an opponent and helping us gain/get ahead of Mankato.

Normally I don't think of PWR this early, but they both look so nice that they're here.

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - November 25, 2019
Rnk	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Minnesota State	(39)	10-1-1	988	1
2	Cornell	        (11)	8-0-0	954	2
3	North Dakota		10-1-2	890	5
4	Denver		        9-3-2	770	4
5	Notre Dame		8-2-2	728	3
6	Clarkson		10-3-1	708	8
7	Penn State		10-3-0	696	6
8	Minnesota Duluth	7-4-1	665	9
9	Harvard		        6-0-0	649	10
10	Massachusetts		8-3-1	630	7
11	Ohio State		7-4-1	483	11
12	Northeastern		8-4-2	416	13
13	Providence		7-4-3	411	12
14	Boston College		7-4-0	370	14
15	UMass Lowell		7-3-4	290	15
16	Bowling Green		8-5-0	212	17
17	Western Michigan	7-5-2	195	20
18	Omaha		        6-4-2	100	18
19	Wisconsin		6-7-1	91	16
20	Michigan State		6-5-1	52	NR

Others receiving votes: Northern Michigan 45, Arizona State 33, 
RIT 27, Maine 25, New Hampshire 16, Quinnipiac 14, Alaska 10, 
Dartmouth 9, Minnesota 8, Michigan Tech 7, Bemidji State 2, 
Sacred Heart 2, Boston University 2, Robert Morris 2

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Men's College Hockey Poll
November 25, 2019
	Team	              Points (First) Last Poll	Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	Minnesota State Univer 	494	(17)	1	10-1-1	9
2	Cornell University 	491	(17)	2	8-0-0	9
3	University North Dakota 419		7	10-1-2	5
4	University of Notre Dame341		3	8-2-2	9
5	University of Denver 	339		4	9-3-2	9
6	Harvard University 	316		8	6-0-0	4
7	Penn State University 	303		5	10-3-0	9
8	Clarkson University 	279		9	10-3-1	9
9	Univer Minnesota Duluth 265		10	7-4-1	9
10	Univer Massachusetts 	235		7	8-3-1	9
11	Ohio State University 	156		11	7-4-1	9
12	Boston College 	        129		12	7-4-0	6
13	Northeastern University 106		14	8-4-2	9
14	Providence College 	 93		13	7-4-3	9
15	Bowling Green State  	 41		15	8-5-0	2

Others receiving votes: Michigan State University 26, University of Massachusetts Lowell 26, 
University of Nebraska Omaha 9, Western Michigan University 4, Michigan Tech University 4, 
University of Maine 3, Northern Michigan University 2.

Men's Division I PairWise Rankings

Rnk	Team	       PWR	W-L-T	W%	W% Rnk	RPI	RPI Rnk

1	Cornell	        59	8-0-0	1.0000	1	0.7676*	1
2	Harvard	        58	6-0-0	1.0000	1	0.6758*	2
3	Minnesota State	57	10-1-1	0.8750	3	0.6699*	3
4	North Dakota	56	10-1-2	0.8462	4	0.6589*	4
5	Notre Dame	55	8-2-2	0.7500	6	0.6223*	5
6	Penn State	54	10-3-0	0.7692	5	0.6056	6
7	Denver	        53	9-3-2	0.7143	8	0.5894*	7
8	Minnesota Duluth52	7-4-1	0.6250	15	0.5633	8
9	Bowling Green	51	8-5-0	0.6154	17	0.5621	9
10	Clarkson	50	10-3-1	0.7500	6	0.5619*	10
11	Michigan State	49	6-5-1	0.5417	27	0.5608	11
12	Boston College	48	7-4-0	0.6364	13	0.5564	12
13	Ohio State	47	7-4-1	0.6250	15	0.5463*	13
14	Arizona State	46	6-4-0	0.6000	19	0.5427*	14
15	Western Michigan45	7-5-2	0.5714	24	0.5422	15
16	Dartmouth	44	3-2-1	0.5833	20	0.5417	16
17	Michigan Tech	43	7-6-0	0.5385	29	0.5410	17
18	Massachusetts	42	8-3-1	0.7083	9	0.5343	18
19	Omaha	        41	6-4-2	0.5833	20	0.5337	19
20	Northeastern	40	8-4-2	0.6429	10	0.5280	20
21	Wisconsin	39	6-7-1	0.4643	34	0.5258	21
22	RIT	        38	8-4-2	0.6429	10	0.5248	22
23	Providence	37	7-4-3	0.6071	18	0.5232	23
24	Alaska	        36	8-8-0	0.5000	31	0.5218	24
25      UMass Lowell	35	7-3-4	0.6429	10	0.5206	25
26	Colorado College34	4-5-1	0.4500	37	0.5196	26
27	Maine	        33	7-5-2	0.5714	24	0.5189	27
28	Northern Michigan32	7-5-2	0.5714	24	0.5163	28
29	New Hampshire	31	6-5-1	0.5417	27	0.5134	29
30	Minnesota	30	5-6-3	0.4643	34	0.5130	30
31	Army	        29	7-4-0	0.6364	13	0.5123	31
32	Quinnipiac	28	6-6-1	0.5000	31	0.5104	32

USCHO Division I Women's Poll - November 25, 2019
Rnk	Team	      (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Minnesota	(14)	13-1-2	148	1
2	Wisconsin	(1)	14-1-1	136	2
3	Cornell		        7-0-1	125	3
4	Northeastern		12-2-0	97	4
5	Princeton		9-2-0	89	8
6	Ohio State		9-3-4	65	7
7	Clarkson		10-2-4	63	5
8	Boston College		11-3-1	47	6
9	Minnesota Duluth	7-5-2	24	10
10	Boston University	10-4-1	17	NR

Others receiving votes: Harvard 10, Robert Morris 4

Women's National Collegiate PairWise Rankings

Rnk	Team	       PWR	W-L-T	W%	W% Rnk	RPI	RPI Rnk

1	Cornell	        40	7-0-1	0.9375	1	0.6843*	1
2	Minnesota	39	13-1-2	0.8750	3	0.6830*	2
3	Wisconsin	38	14-1-1	0.9062	2	0.6812*	3
4	Northeastern	37	12-2-0	0.8571	4	0.6583*	4
5	Princeton	36	9-2-0	0.8182	5	0.6158*	5
6	Ohio State	35	9-3-4	0.6875	11	0.6082	6
7	Clarkson	34	10-2-4	0.7500	7	0.5993*	7
8	Harvard	        32	5-2-0	0.7143	9	0.5869*	8
8	Boston College	32	11-3-1	0.7667	6	0.5827*	9
10	Boston University31	10-4-1	0.7000	10	0.5781	10
11	Minnesota Duluth30	7-5-2	0.5714	16	0.5744	11
12	Colgate	        29	8-6-3	0.5588	17	0.5513*	12
13	Robert Morris	28	8-5-1	0.6071	14	0.5453*	13
14	Connecticut	26	8-5-1	0.6071	14	0.5389*	14
14	Mercyhurst	26	7-4-1	0.6250	13	0.5351	15
16	Maine	        25	6-6-2	0.5000	20	0.5306	16
17	New Hampshire	24	7-7-2	0.5000	20	0.5304	17
18	Bemidji State	23	5-8-1	0.3929	26	0.5123	18
19	Providence	22	7-6-2	0.5333	19	0.5114	19
20	Quinnipiac	21	6-6-3	0.5000	20	0.5112*	20
21	Yale	        20	5-4-0	0.5556	18	0.5086*	21
22	St. Lawrence	19	5-6-3	0.4643	24	0.5023*	22

Why are CHN's and USCHO's Pairwise rankings still so different??

Beeeej
Why are CHN's and USCHO's Pairwise rankings still so different??

Alternative facts.

Well here's the top schools and their RPIs as calculated by USCHO & CHN.

(US)Rnk	Team	     (US)PW  (US)RPI (US)RPI (C)PCWs (C)RPI (C)Rk 	
                                        Rnk
1	Cornell	        59	0.7676*	 1      59   .7256 	1 	
2	Harvard	        58	0.6758*	 2      56   .6431 	4
3	Minnesota State	57	0.6699*	 3      58   .6592 	2 	
4	North Dakota	56	0.6589*	 4      57   .6589 	3
5	Notre Dame	55	0.6223*	 5      55   .6223 	5

Since RPI is really the reason for ranking, the different way each calculates the RPI makes the difference.

I've not looked into how they do the calculations.

Maybe Adam could help us?

Jim Hyla
Maybe Adam could help us?

Ours is right. Hope that helps

adamw

Jim Hyla
Maybe Adam could help us?

Ours is right. Hope that helps

No, it doesn't, but then you knew that.

Poorly functioning ECAC.

Looks like we need to do well in Las Vegas, as well as in the ECAC.

Rankings roundup: How the top 20 teams fared, Nov. 28-Dec. 1

No. 1 Minnesota State (12-1-1)
11/29/2019 – No. 1 Minnesota State 4 at No. 8 Minnesota Duluth 1
11/30/2019 – No. 1 Minnesota State 3 at No. 8 Minnesota Duluth 1

No. 2 Cornell (9-0-0)
11/30/2019 – No. 2 Cornell 2 vs RV Boston University 0 

No. 3 North Dakota (12-1-2)
11/28/2019 – No. 3 North Dakota 9 at RV Minnesota 3
11/29/2019 – No. 3 North Dakota 3 at RV Minnesota 2

No. 4 Denver (9-3-2)
Did not play.

No. 5 Notre Dame (8-4-2)
11/29/2019 – No. 16 Bowling Green 5 at No. 5 Notre Dame 2
11/30/2019 – No. 5 Notre Dame 2 at No. 16 Bowling Green 5

No. 6 Clarkson (10-3-1)
Did not play.

No. 7 Penn State (11-4-0)
11/29/2019 – No. 7 Penn State 7 at Merrimack 0
11/30/2019 – No. 7 Penn State 2 at No. 15 UMass Lowell 3 (OT)

No. 8 Minnesota Duluth (7-6-1)
11/29/2019 – No. 1 Minnesota State 4 at No. 8 Minnesota Duluth 1
11/30/2019 – No. 1 Minnesota State 3 at No. 8 Minnesota Duluth 1

No. 9 Harvard (6-1-0)
11/29/2019 – No. 14 Boston College 4 at No. 9 Harvard 2

No. 10 Massachusetts (9-4-1)
11/29/2019 – No. 10 Massachusetts 3 at RV Quinnipiac 0
11/30/2019 – RV Quinnipiac 2 at No. 10 Massachusetts 1

No. 11 Ohio State (9-4-1)
11/30/2019 – No. 20 Michigan State 1 at No. 11 Ohio State 3
12/01/2019 – No. 20 Michigan State 0 at No. 11 Ohio State 2

No. 12 Northeastern (10-4-2)
11/29/2019 – No. 12 Northeastern 4 vs RV New Hampshire 0
11/30/2019 Colgate 3 vs No. 12 Northeastern 4 

No. 13 Providence (8-4-3)
11/30/2019 – Brown 2 at No. 13 Providence 4 

No. 14 Boston College (9-4-0)
11/26/2019 – Yale 2 at No. 14 Boston College 6
11/29/2019 – No. 14 Boston College 4 at No. 9 Harvard 2

No. 15 UMass Lowell (9-3-4)
11/29/2019 – Rensselaer 0 at No. 15 UMass Lowell 4
11/30/2019 – No. 7 Penn State 2 at No. 15 UMass Lowell 3 (OT)

No. 16 Bowling Green (10-5-0)
11/29/2019 – No. 16 Bowling Green 5 at No. 5 Notre Dame 2
11/30/2019 – No. 5 Notre Dame 2 at No. 16 Bowling Green 5

No. 17 Western Michigan (7-5-2)
Did not play.

No. 18 Omaha (6-4-2)
Did not play.

No. 19 Wisconsin (7-8-1)
11/30/2019 – Michigan 2 at No. 19 Wisconsin 3
12/01/2019 – Michigan 3 at No. 19 Wisconsin 1

No. 20 Michigan State (6-7-1)
11/30/2019 – No. 20 Michigan State 1 at No. 11 Ohio State 3
12/01/2019 – No. 20 Michigan State 0 at No. 11 Ohio State 2

RV = Received Votes

So in response to they prior observation that there's a differance between the 2 PWRs, I've decided to post both.

USCHO's Men's Division I PairWise Rankings

Rnk	Team	       PWR	W-L-T	W%	W% Rnk	RPI	RPI Rnk

1	Cornell	        59	9-0-0	1.0000	1	0.7173*	1
2	Minnesota State	58	12-1-1	0.8929	2	0.6750*	2
3	North Dakota	57	12-1-2	0.8667	3	0.6609*	3
4	Denver	        56	9-3-2	0.7143	7	0.5959*	4
5	Boston College	55	9-4-0	0.6923	9	0.5824	5
6	Bowling Green	54	10-5-0	0.6667	14	0.5819	6
7	Penn State	53	11-4-0	0.7333	6	0.5810	7
8	Harvard	        52	6-1-0	0.8571	4	0.5739*	8
9	Notre Dame	51	8-4-2	0.6429	15	0.5734	9
10	Ohio State	50	9-4-1	0.6786	12	0.5660	10
11	Michigan Tech	49	8-7-0	0.5333	29	0.5473	11
12	Clarkson	48	10-3-1	0.7500	5	0.5457*	12
13	Minnesota Duluth47	7-6-1	0.5357	27	0.5452	13
14	Massachusetts	46	9-4-1	0.6786	12	0.5440	14
15	Western Michigan45	7-5-2	0.5714	22	0.5436	15
16	Arizona State	44	7-4-1	0.6250	17	0.5426	16
17	UMass Lowell	43	9-3-4	0.6875	10	0.5419	17
18	Providence	42	8-4-3	0.6333	16	0.5402	18
19	Northeastern	41	10-4-2	0.6875	10	0.5399	19
20	Army	        40	10-4-0	0.7143	7	0.5396*	20
21	Omaha	        39	6-4-2	0.5833	20	0.5293	21
22	Maine	        38	8-5-3	0.5938	19	0.5255	22
23	Michigan State	37	6-7-1	0.4643	33	0.5232	23
24	Dartmouth	36	3-2-1	0.5833	20	0.5217	24
25	Alaska	        35	9-9-0	0.5000	30	0.5197	25
26	Bemidji State	34	7-4-3	0.6071	18	0.5193	26
27	Colorado College33	4-5-1	0.4500	36	0.5137	27
28	Quinnipiac	32	7-7-1	0.5000	30	0.5098	28

CHN's NCAA Tournament Pairwise Comparison Ratings

Rk 	Team 	       PCWs 	RPI 	Rk 	QWB-† 	W-L-T 	Win % 	Wgtd Win % - ‡
1 	Cornell 	59 	.6869 	1 	.0033 	9-0-0 	1.0000 	1.0000
2 	Minnesota State 58 	.6679 	2 	.0142 	12-1-1 	.8929 	.8732
3 	North Dakota 	57 	.6596 	3 	.0090 	12-1-2 	.8667 	.8824
4 	Denver 	        56 	.5959 	4 	.0065 	9-3-2 	.7143 	.7000
5 	Boston College 	55 	.5824 	5 	.0034 	9-4-0 	.6923 	.7273
6 	Bowling Green 	54 	.5819 	6 	.0093 	10-5-0 	.6667 	.6667
7 	Penn State 	53 	.5810 	7 	.0015 	11-4-0 	.7333 	.6944
8 	Notre Dame 	52 	.5734 	8 	.0034 	8-4-2 	.6429 	.6562
9 	Harvard 	51 	.5728 	9 	.0000 	6-1-0 	.8571 	.8333
10 	Ohio State 	50 	.5660 	10 	.0038 	9-4-1 	.6786 	.6894
11 	Michigan Tech 	49 	.5473 	11 	.0024 	8-7-0 	.5333 	.5610
12 	Clarkson 	48 	.5456 	12 	.0000 	10-3-1 	.7500 	.7534
13 	Minnesota-Duluth47 	.5452 	13 	.0043 	7-6-1 	.5357 	.5075
14 	Massachusetts 	46 	.5440 	14 	.0015 	9-4-1 	.6786 	.6769
15 	Western Michigan45 	.5436 	15 	.0070 	7-5-2 	.5714 	.5870
16 	Arizona State 	44 	.5426 	16 	.0000 	7-4-1 	.6250 	.6316
17 	Mass.-Lowell 	43 	.5419 	17 	.0033 	9-3-4 	.6875 	.6625
18 	Providence 	42 	.5402 	18 	.0055 	8-4-3 	.6333 	.6133
19 	Northeastern 	41 	.5399 	19 	.0011 	10-4-2 	.6875 	.6974
20 	Army 	        40 	.5396 	20 	.0000 	10-4-0 	.7143 	.7222
21 	Nebraska-Omaha 	39 	.5293 	21 	.0033 	6-4-2 	.5833 	.5833
22 	Maine 	        38 	.5255 	22 	.0003 	8-5-3 	.5938 	.6301
23 	Michigan State 	37 	.5232 	23 	.0061 	6-7-1 	.4643 	.4928
24 	Dartmouth 	36 	.5217 	24 	.0000 	3-2-1 	.5833 	.6207
25 	Alaska 	        35 	.5197 	25 	.0072 	9-9-0 	.5000 	.4894
26 	Bemidji State 	34 	.5193 	26 	.0000 	7-4-3 	.6071 	.6308
27 	Colorado College33 	.5137 	27 	.0002 	4-5-1 	.4500 	.4314
28 	Quinnipiac 	32 	.5098 	28 	.0015 	7-7-1 	.5000 	.5072

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - December 2, 2019
Rnk	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Minnesota State	(44)	12-1-1	994	1
2	Cornell	(6)	         9-0-0	947	2
3	North Dakota		12-1-2	889	3
4	Denver		         9-3-2	826	4
5	Clarkson		10-3-1	758	6
6	Penn State		11-4-0	656	7
7	Ohio State		 9-4-1	620	11
8	Northeastern		10-4-2	528	12
9	Notre Dame		 8-4-2	527	5
10	Boston College		 9-4-0	522	14
11	Massachusetts		 9-4-1	491	10
12	Harvard		         6-1-0	488	9
13	Bowling Green		10-5-0	478	16
14	Minnesota Duluth	 7-6-1	429	8
15	Providence		 8-4-3	388	13
16	UMass Lowell		 9-3-4	375	15
17	Western Michigan	 7-5-2	200	17
18	Omaha		         6-4-2	128	18
19	Wisconsin		 7-8-1	41	19
20	Arizona State		 7-4-1	39	NR

Others receiving votes: Maine 27, Quinnipiac 21, Northern Michigan 20, 
Michigan State 19, Army 17, Sacred Heart 14, Alaska 12, Bemidji State 12, 
Michigan Tech 10, Dartmouth 7, RIT 7, New Hampshire 6, Robert Morris 3, Minnesota 1

USCHO Division I Women's Poll - December 2, 2019
Rnk	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Wisconsin	(8)	16-1-1	143	2
2	Minnesota	(7)	14-1-3	142	1
3	Northeastern		13-2-0	111	4
4	Cornell		         9-1-1	109	3
5	Ohio State		10-4-4	77	6
6	Princeton		 9-2-0	74	5
7	Clarkson		12-2-4	63	7
8	Boston College		11-4-2	52	8
9	Boston University	10-4-1	24	10
10	Minnesota Duluth	 8-6-2	19	9

Others receiving votes: Robert Morris 5, 
Mercyhurst 5, Harvard 1

Just noticed the Vegas field has turned out to be strong:

 1   9-0-0 Cornell
10   9-4-1 Ohio State
18   8-4-3 Providence
20  10-4-3 Army

A couple tweaks and that could be an NC$$ regional field (1/8/9/16)

So mea culpa ... our Pairwise was calculating incorrectly, but not because of the Pairwise algorithm, per se ... we had the site for some of the "Bad win" games all listed as home games, even when they were road games. Which - because of the weighting these days - messes things up. This was a dumb bug on my part introduced in June when I was playing around with some stuff.

Anyway - Pairwise is right now - so...thanks for the inspiration to get to the bottom of it.

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Men's College Hockey Poll
December 2, 2019
	Team	              Points  (First) Last Poll	Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	Minnesota State Univer 	497	(21)	1	12-1-1	10
2	Cornell University 	486	(13)	2	9-0-0	10
3	University North Dakota 431		3	12-1-2	6
4	University of Denver 	392		5	9-3-2	10
5	Clarkson University 	304		8	10-3-1	10
6	Penn State University 	262		7	11-4-0	10
7	Boston College 	        254		12	9-4-0	7
8	Ohio State University 	252		11	9-4-1	10
9	Harvard University 	229		6	6-1-0	5
10	University of Notre Dame203		4	8-4-2	10
11	Bowling Green State  	173		15	10-5-0	10
12	Northeastern University 159		13	10-4-2	10
13	University Massachusetts139		10	9-4-1	10
14	Univer Minnesota Duluth 105		9	7-6-1	10
15	Massachusetts Lowell     87		NR	9-3-4	3

Others receiving votes: Providence College 78, University of Nebraska Omaha 14, 
Michigan Tech University 5, Western Michigan University 4, 
University of Maine 4, Arizona State University 2.

the dismal state of the ecac has me mentally pumping the brakes on our team EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY HAPPY WITH WHAT I'VE SEEN

ugarte
the dismal state of the ecac has me mentally pumping the brakes on our team EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY HAPPY WITH WHAT I'VE SEEN

I figure some of that is bad luck. The conference's record against other conferences is SO bad, but it's also not that many games. A few close games go the other way and our conference record is only pretty bad and things would look better.

I think in a few months, we'll have fewer teams at the very bottom of the pairwise. Hopefully we're still towards the top.

adamw
So mea culpa ... our Pairwise was calculating incorrectly, but not because of the Pairwise algorithm, per se ... we had the site for some of the "Bad win" games all listed as home games, even when they were road games. Which - because of the weighting these days - messes things up. This was a dumb bug on my part introduced in June when I was playing around with some stuff.

Anyway - Pairwise is right now - so...thanks for the inspiration to get to the bottom of it.

One would think that by now some sports nerd would have written a R package that, at a minimum, scrapes relevant data off the Web and computes RPI and the pairwise.

Swampy

adamw
So mea culpa ... our Pairwise was calculating incorrectly, but not because of the Pairwise algorithm, per se ... we had the site for some of the "Bad win" games all listed as home games, even when they were road games. Which - because of the weighting these days - messes things up. This was a dumb bug on my part introduced in June when I was playing around with some stuff.

Anyway - Pairwise is right now - so...thanks for the inspiration to get to the bottom of it.

One would think that by now some sports nerd would have written a R package that, at a minimum, scrapes relevant data off the Web and computes RPI and the pairwise.

Not sure I understand the point? Isn't that what we're doing?

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Women's College Hockey Poll
December 3, 2019
	Team	              Points  (First) Last Poll Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	University of Wisconsin	183	(12)	2	16-1-1	11
2	University of Minnesota	178	(7)	1	14-1-3	11
3	Northeastern University	142		4	13-2-0	11
4	Cornell University 	137		3	 9-1-1	11
5	Ohio State University 	102		7	10-4-4	11
6	Princeton University 	 89		5	 9-2-0	11
7	Clarkson University 	 82		6	12-2-4	11
8	Boston College 	         69		8	11-4-2	10
9	Boston University 	 31		10	10-4-1	8
10	Univer Minnesota Duluth  26		9	 8-6-2	9

Others receiving votes: Robert Morris University 4, 
Mercyhurst University 1, Quinnipiac University 1.

adamw

Swampy

adamw
So mea culpa ... our Pairwise was calculating incorrectly, but not because of the Pairwise algorithm, per se ... we had the site for some of the "Bad win" games all listed as home games, even when they were road games. Which - because of the weighting these days - messes things up. This was a dumb bug on my part introduced in June when I was playing around with some stuff.

Anyway - Pairwise is right now - so...thanks for the inspiration to get to the bottom of it.

One would think that by now some sports nerd would have written a R package that, at a minimum, scrapes relevant data off the Web and computes RPI and the pairwise.

Not sure I understand the point? Isn't that what we're doing?

There are a few points. (1) If the package scrapes web pages, then you would not be inputting data manually. Unless the source(s) were wrong (e.g. NC$$ site was wrong), the mistake you made could not have happened. (2) R packages are generally FOSS, so dozens of nerdy fans could be calculating the pairwise. This would make discrepancies easier to detect. (3) It would also allow fans to examine contingencies and play "what if?" E.g., I would have liked to compare wins by both teams in tonight's BU/Harvard matchup just to know which one to root for. (4) If the package were FOSS, then people could modify it to include visuals, KRACH instead of RPI, etc. (5) Also because it's FOSS, bugs are eliminated more ruthlessly. Many years ago I used a specialized R package to do a statistical analysis, but I was suspicious of the results. So I found a textbook example of the kind of analysis I was doing and fed the textbook's data into the R package. The results differed from the textbook's. Because it was FOSS, I could dig into the calculations and figure out where the R package diverged from the textbook's calculations. This led me to discover a bug in the R code. Not only was I able to correct it and fix my analysis, I also reported the bug and showed how to fix it.

Swampy
There are a few points. (1) If the package scrapes web pages, then you would not be inputting data manually. Unless the source(s) were wrong (e.g. NC$$ site was wrong), the mistake you made could not have happened. (2) R packages are generally FOSS, so dozens of nerdy fans could be calculating the pairwise. This would make discrepancies easier to detect. (3) It would also allow fans to examine contingencies and play "what if?" E.g., I would have liked to compare wins by both teams in tonight's BU/Harvard matchup just to know which one to root for. (4) If the package were FOSS, then people could modify it to include visuals, KRACH instead of RPI, etc. (5) Also because it's FOSS, bugs are eliminated more ruthlessly. Many years ago I used a specialized R package to do a statistical analysis, but I was suspicious of the results. So I found a textbook example of the kind of analysis I was doing and fed the textbook's data into the R package. The results differed from the textbook's. Because it was FOSS, I could dig into the calculations and figure out where the R package diverged from the textbook's calculations. This led me to discover a bug in the R code. Not only was I able to correct it and fix my analysis, I also reported the bug and showed how to fix it.

1) We are not manually entering anything. ... what we're doing is much more efficient than scraping web pages. Whose web pages would you be scraping? We get our data from official sources - entered into a database automatically. The only manual entry is at arenas. That original source would be prone to an error no matter what. The only places you could scrape from are either us, or the same official source as us. You would be just as prone to making an error in processing data from scraping, as I am in getting it from an official source. In actuality, the error was not exactly as I explained. It had nothing to do with a data source error - but just in the way it was being tallied up. One line of code that tallies up weighted home/road "points" solely for the purpose of discarding "bad wins" - hard to explain - anyway ... 2) there are numerous fans who already do calculate the Pairwise too, FYI - and we already cooperate with them - and vice-versa - in order to point out discrepancies and figure out where our calculations go awry - which usually only happens when there is some sort of criteria change - except in this case, where I was dumb and left out a line after doing some refactoring over the summer. ... 3) We have a "what if" calculator on our site, as did John Whelan for years - but if you want to have at doing another one, be my guest. In fact, feel free to work on improving ours ...

I really know nothing about the rest of it - but go for it. I don't think it would accomplish what you think it would - but feel free to have at it.

The error was caught. Would it have been caught faster if hundreds of nerds were also compiling their own Pairwise? Maybe. But you'd still have to know how to calculate the Pairwise correctly - because there's a lot to it under the hood that is not officially explained anywhere. There is no "textbook" in this case. So ... good luck

While we're at it, thanks for putting up KRACH, even though Cornell is shown with an infinite rating. When did Whelan give up on the fictitious games? I know I've had discussions with him in the past where he vociferously defended including it, even up to the end of the season when the sample size is merely tiny and not infinitesimal.

Just curious.

adamw

Swampy
There are a few points. (1) If the package scrapes web pages, then you would not be inputting data manually. Unless the source(s) were wrong (e.g. NC$$ site was wrong), the mistake you made could not have happened. (2) R packages are generally FOSS, so dozens of nerdy fans could be calculating the pairwise. This would make discrepancies easier to detect. (3) It would also allow fans to examine contingencies and play "what if?" E.g., I would have liked to compare wins by both teams in tonight's BU/Harvard matchup just to know which one to root for. (4) If the package were FOSS, then people could modify it to include visuals, KRACH instead of RPI, etc. (5) Also because it's FOSS, bugs are eliminated more ruthlessly. Many years ago I used a specialized R package to do a statistical analysis, but I was suspicious of the results. So I found a textbook example of the kind of analysis I was doing and fed the textbook's data into the R package. The results differed from the textbook's. Because it was FOSS, I could dig into the calculations and figure out where the R package diverged from the textbook's calculations. This led me to discover a bug in the R code. Not only was I able to correct it and fix my analysis, I also reported the bug and showed how to fix it.

1) We are not manually entering anything. ... what we're doing is much more efficient than scraping web pages. Whose web pages would you be scraping? We get our data from official sources - entered into a database automatically. The only manual entry is at arenas. That original source would be prone to an error no matter what. The only places you could scrape from are either us, or the same official source as us. You would be just as prone to making an error in processing data from scraping, as I am in getting it from an official source. In actuality, the error was not exactly as I explained. It had nothing to do with a data source error - but just in the way it was being tallied up. One line of code that tallies up weighted home/road "points" solely for the purpose of discarding "bad wins" - hard to explain - anyway ... 2) there are numerous fans who already do calculate the Pairwise too, FYI - and we already cooperate with them - and vice-versa - in order to point out discrepancies and figure out where our calculations go awry - which usually only happens when there is some sort of criteria change - except in this case, where I was dumb and left out a line after doing some refactoring over the summer. ... 3) We have a "what if" calculator on our site, as did John Whelan for years - but if you want to have at doing another one, be my guest. In fact, feel free to work on improving ours ...

I really know nothing about the rest of it - but go for it. I don't think it would accomplish what you think it would - but feel free to have at it.

The error was caught. Would it have been caught faster if hundreds of nerds were also compiling their own Pairwise? Maybe. But you'd still have to know how to calculate the Pairwise correctly - because there's a lot to it under the hood that is not officially explained anywhere. There is no "textbook" in this case. So ... good luck

Thanks, Adam. Much of what you say is new information I didn't know.

I guess my biggest point is if there were an authoritative, completely FOSS version of software to compute RPI and Pairwise, an individual's coding mistake would not only be discovered quickly, but also multiple users of the software would be likely to bring this discovery to light.

I didn't know you were loading official data into your database. In fact, I didn't know such data are available. Certainly this is preferable to scraping web pages, although one could argue that a web page is just another data format. I frequently use data that are downloadable in a database-friendly format (e.g., csv files), but sometimes an agency only publishes data on a web site. In both cases, once the code is written to import the data, I hardly notice any difference between different kinds of sources. (How the data are organized -- e.g. as a time series versus one-shot, Saturday night results -- is an entirely different matter.)

Off the top of my head, if I were to choose a single data source, it would be the NC$$'s official results.

Your last point is also mine. I was assuming there would be one authoritative package that's known to produce correct results. This would be the starting point for any enhancements.

So, to follow up this discussion, what software do you use? What programming language is it written in? Is it publicly available? If so, how? Is it free? What copyright or other licensing restrictions does it have? Is it open source?

Can we appreciate both CHN and indy nerds who reverse-engineer everything, or do we have to take sides here?

Just tell me whom to hate, dammit!

I'm still curious about the official rankings, which are described as being an enigmatic process that is best approximated by the pairwise.

I'm always a little worried when we're right on the bubble that the mystery will somehow keep us out.

Trotsky
Can we appreciate both CHN and indy nerds who reverse-engineer everything, or do we have to take sides here?

Just tell me whom to hate, dammit!

Starts with an H...

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
Can we appreciate both CHN and indy nerds who reverse-engineer everything, or do we have to take sides here?

Just tell me whom to hate, dammit!

Starts with an H...

Whose loss dropped their PWR to 11 and also dropped the PWR of Clarkson, Dartmouth and Q. Can't anyone else in the ECAC help us and the rest of the league.

I can see EZAC popping up all over

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
Can we appreciate both CHN and indy nerds who reverse-engineer everything, or do we have to take sides here?

Just tell me whom to hate, dammit!

Starts with an H...

Whose loss dropped their PWR to 11 and also dropped the PWR of Clarkson, Dartmouth and Q. Can't anyone else in the ECAC help us and the rest of the league.

I can see EZAC popping up all over

I think whoever said the OOC records will likely even out over the holidays is right. My baseline expectation is the league will be pretty similar to where it was last year overall, when ECAC teams went .481 in inter-conference play. Right now it looks awful though - .381 to date. :/

On a related note, Cornell has the 51st ranked schedule strength in KRACH, and it's so terrible largely due to the ECAC part of the schedule (note: it is set at NaN, so I don't really know how it gets ranked anywhere other than last, but Colgate is 44th so it's probably not too far wrong). By contrast, Minnesota State is 12-1-1 against the toughest schedule in the nation, and NoDak and Denver have run up impressive records against similarly tough competition.

On the other hand, Cornell is 9-0-0. I'm enjoying that. :D

Tom Lento
On a related note, Cornell has the 51st ranked schedule strength in KRACH, and it's so terrible largely due to the ECAC part of the schedule (note: it is set at NaN, so I don't really know how it gets ranked anywhere other than last, but Colgate is 44th so it's probably not too far wrong). By contrast, Minnesota State is 12-1-1 against the toughest schedule in the nation, and NoDak and Denver have run up impressive records against similarly tough competition.

On the other hand, Cornell is 9-0-0. I'm enjoying that. :D

I think the tournament in Vegas will be very telling - it's a strong field overall, so if we can come out of there with two wins I'll have some genuine confidence for March.

I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

Beeeej

Tom Lento
On a related note, Cornell has the 51st ranked schedule strength in KRACH, and it's so terrible largely due to the ECAC part of the schedule (note: it is set at NaN, so I don't really know how it gets ranked anywhere other than last, but Colgate is 44th so it's probably not too far wrong). By contrast, Minnesota State is 12-1-1 against the toughest schedule in the nation, and NoDak and Denver have run up impressive records against similarly tough competition.

On the other hand, Cornell is 9-0-0. I'm enjoying that. :D

I think the tournament in Vegas will be very telling - it's a strong field overall, so if we can come out of there with two wins I'll have some genuine confidence for March.

For truth quoted is.

Tom Lento

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
Can we appreciate both CHN and indy nerds who reverse-engineer everything, or do we have to take sides here?

Just tell me whom to hate, dammit!

Starts with an H...

Whose loss dropped their PWR to 11 and also dropped the PWR of Clarkson, Dartmouth and Q. Can't anyone else in the ECAC help us and the rest of the league.

I can see EZAC popping up all over

I think whoever said the OOC records will likely even out over the holidays is right. My baseline expectation is the league will be pretty similar to where it was last year overall, when ECAC teams went .481 in inter-conference play. Right now it looks awful though - .381 to date. :/

On a related note, Cornell has the 51st ranked schedule strength in KRACH, and it's so terrible largely due to the ECAC part of the schedule (note: it is set at NaN, so I don't really know how it gets ranked anywhere other than last, but Colgate is 44th so it's probably not too far wrong). By contrast, Minnesota State is 12-1-1 against the toughest schedule in the nation, and NoDak and Denver have run up impressive records against similarly tough competition.

On the other hand, Cornell is 9-0-0. I'm enjoying that. :D

I figure the ECAC ooc record has to improve, largely because it can't get much worse.

Tom Lento

I think whoever said the OOC records will likely even out over the holidays is right. My baseline expectation is the league will be pretty similar to where it was last year overall, when ECAC teams went .481 in inter-conference play. Right now it looks awful though - .381 to date. :/

On a related note, Cornell has the 51st ranked schedule strength in KRACH, and it's so terrible largely due to the ECAC part of the schedule (note: it is set at NaN, so I don't really know how it gets ranked anywhere other than last, but Colgate is 44th so it's probably not too far wrong). By contrast, Minnesota State is 12-1-1 against the toughest schedule in the nation, and NoDak and Denver have run up impressive records against similarly tough competition.

On the other hand, Cornell is 9-0-0. I'm enjoying that. :D

Is that SoS looking at the entire schedule including games not yet played? If it is, I’d be interested in SoS of only games played for a sense of how impressive, or not, Cornell’s 9-0-0 is. (Well, it’s impressive regardless not having had an “off” day through nine games, but could be more so if SoS of those games is higher than 51st.)

JasonN95
Is that SoS looking at the entire schedule including games not yet played? If it is, I’d be interested in SoS of only games played for a sense of how impressive, or not, Cornell’s 9-0-0 is. (Well, it’s impressive regardless not having had an “off” day through nine games, but could be more so if SoS of those games is higher than 51st.)

SoS in KRACH is always only looking at games already played.

Dafatone
I figure the ECAC ooc record has to improve, largely because it can't get much worse.

Harvard at the Beanpot: "challenge accepted!"

Swampy
I guess my biggest point is if there were an authoritative, completely FOSS version of software to compute RPI and Pairwise, an individual's coding mistake would not only be discovered quickly, but also multiple users of the software would be likely to bring this discovery to light.

That's not really possible. See below.

Swampy
I didn't know you were loading official data into your database. In fact, I didn't know such data are available. Certainly this is preferable to scraping web pages, although one could argue that a web page is just another data format. I frequently use data that are downloadable in a database-friendly format (e.g., csv files), but sometimes an agency only publishes data on a web site. In both cases, once the code is written to import the data, I hardly notice any difference between different kinds of sources. (How the data are organized -- e.g. as a time series versus one-shot, Saturday night results -- is an entirely different matter.)

Off the top of my head, if I were to choose a single data source, it would be the NC$$'s official results.

This is the data we receive. We pay for it. It still needs to be processed and tallied.

Swampy
Your last point is also mine. I was assuming there would be one authoritative package that's known to produce correct results. This would be the starting point for any enhancements.

There is. The one the NCAA uses. Everyone else, reverse engineers from there. You need to understand, I think, that an error like this is pretty rare. The last one that caused a calculation issue on CHN was probably 6 years ago. I can't vouch for other places. Of course, enhancements like you mention are wonderful ideas. My suggestion on that is - if you want to see more enhancements, come help me at CHN

Swampy
So, to follow up this discussion, what software do you use? What programming language is it written in? Is it publicly available? If so, how? Is it free? What copyright or other licensing restrictions does it have? Is it open source?

I use PHP - but that's pretty much neither here nor there. It could be done in anything. No it's not publicly available, no it's not open source, and it won't be. At least not mine. Like I said, if you - or whoever - wants to have a go at that, go for it. But CHN is theoretically attempting to make some pennies at doing this, so I'm not sure it's wise to make it open source. It also would probably be frowned upon by the NCAA - because reasons. That said, as I alluded to before, in the spirit of collegiality I converse with a few other "fan" blogs/people/sites that also attempt to do their own Pairwise, to compare notes, and make sure we're not making errors.

But understand, you will never know whether what you are doing is incorrect because of your own error (or the collective nerds), or because of CHN's error. Because you will have no textbook to refer to. No official source. That is why I wasn't sure whether the discrepancy was USCHO's fault, or CHN's. I assumed the former because, well, reasons again - but I was wrong this time. What CHN publishes is technically not official. There is no official, except what the NCAA produces - which is kept secret. I can't get into it much further than that.

Beeeej

Tom Lento
On a related note, Cornell has the 51st ranked schedule strength in KRACH, and it's so terrible largely due to the ECAC part of the schedule (note: it is set at NaN, so I don't really know how it gets ranked anywhere other than last, but Colgate is 44th so it's probably not too far wrong). By contrast, Minnesota State is 12-1-1 against the toughest schedule in the nation, and NoDak and Denver have run up impressive records against similarly tough competition.

On the other hand, Cornell is 9-0-0. I'm enjoying that. :D

I think the tournament in Vegas will be very telling - it's a strong field overall, so if we can come out of there with two wins I'll have some genuine confidence for March.

I was going to say something like "Since the worst thing that can happen to our SOS is to have Army do whatever we do in the first game, Army will do whatever we do in the first game." Then I checked and Army is at 20, hardly a material difference from Providence at 17.

ugarte

Beeeej

Tom Lento
On a related note, Cornell has the 51st ranked schedule strength in KRACH, and it's so terrible largely due to the ECAC part of the schedule (note: it is set at NaN, so I don't really know how it gets ranked anywhere other than last, but Colgate is 44th so it's probably not too far wrong). By contrast, Minnesota State is 12-1-1 against the toughest schedule in the nation, and NoDak and Denver have run up impressive records against similarly tough competition.

On the other hand, Cornell is 9-0-0. I'm enjoying that. :D

I think the tournament in Vegas will be very telling - it's a strong field overall, so if we can come out of there with two wins I'll have some genuine confidence for March.

I was going to say something like "Since the worst thing that can happen to our SOS is to have Army do whatever we do in the first game, Army will do whatever we do in the first game." Then I checked and Army is at 20, hardly a material difference from Providence at 17.

Even so, isn't SOS dynamic? If Army beats Providence, their RPI will go up and PC's down, so if we also beat OSU, we'll probably be facing #18 or 19 instead of #20. Should improve our SOS no matter what happens in the actual game. Now, if we both lose, on the other hand...

I predict if we win we'll be fine.

Trotsky
I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

I was gonna make a comment about the 1956 Clarkson team, but it looks like they were left out due to ineligible players rather than a soft schedule.

you win enough games and it wont matter who you beat, just avoid losing the really bad teams

Beeeej

ugarte

Beeeej

Tom Lento
On a related note, Cornell has the 51st ranked schedule strength in KRACH, and it's so terrible largely due to the ECAC part of the schedule (note: it is set at NaN, so I don't really know how it gets ranked anywhere other than last, but Colgate is 44th so it's probably not too far wrong). By contrast, Minnesota State is 12-1-1 against the toughest schedule in the nation, and NoDak and Denver have run up impressive records against similarly tough competition.

On the other hand, Cornell is 9-0-0. I'm enjoying that. :D

I think the tournament in Vegas will be very telling - it's a strong field overall, so if we can come out of there with two wins I'll have some genuine confidence for March.

I was going to say something like "Since the worst thing that can happen to our SOS is to have Army do whatever we do in the first game, Army will do whatever we do in the first game." Then I checked and Army is at 20, hardly a material difference from Providence at 17.

i'm just saying i expected army to be like 36 but they aren't so it probably doesn't matter who we play in the second game (even though i suspect by the end of the season there will be more separation between providence and army and we'd rather play and beat providence)
Even so, isn't SOS dynamic? If Army beats Providence, their RPI will go up and PC's down, so if we also beat OSU, we'll probably be facing #18 or 19 instead of #20. Should improve our SOS no matter what happens in the actual game. Now, if we both lose, on the other hand...

Cornell was taken out of the mix because our KRACH cannot be calculated. What does that mean for teams that played us? I assume those games not included in their KRACH/SOS calculation... which artificially would lower their SOS... which in turn lowers our apparent SOS.

My guess is we will see an uptick in both (us and opponent) SOS if/when Cornell has a non-infinite rating.

KenP
Cornell was taken out of the mix because our KRACH cannot be calculated. What does that mean for teams that played us? I assume those games not included in their KRACH/SOS calculation... which artificially would lower their SOS... which in turn lowers our apparent SOS.

Herre's hoping that's a problem all season...

Trotsky
I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

I don't know what the official SOS was, but it's funny that we played BU twice that year during the RS, and BU won the NC in 1971 and 1972. So they couldn't have been that bad in 1970.

We also played BC once. And I do remember them being a power when we first started whupping them in the late 1960s.

We played both SLU & Harvard twice during the RS and then again during the ECAC tourney. So at least by ECAC standards, they couldn't have been too bad either.

Then we played Clarkson for the ECAC championship and then again for the NC$$ NC, so Clarkson must have been pretty good too. (Of course beating them in the national title game wouldn't count towards SOS in any meaningful way. But I wonder why we didn't play Clarkson during the RS.

An interesting side note on that season is that we beat Dartmouth by one goal, 3-2 on Feb. 21 at Dartmouth. But Ned must have had a word with the boys, because on Mar. 4 we beat Dartmouth 14-0 at Lynah. It was our most lopsided win of the season.

Swampy

Trotsky
I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

Then we played Clarkson for the ECAC championship and then again for the NC$$ NC, so Clarkson must have been pretty good too. (Of course beating them in the national title game wouldn't count towards SOS in any meaningful way. But I wonder why we didn't play Clarkson during the RS.

If I understand correctly, the ECAC at the time had three divisions because of the unusual mix of schools (we were Ivy), and 17 (?) schools - so since a round-robin wasn't practical, not all ECAC teams played all other ECAC teams during the RS like they do now.

Beeeej

Swampy

Trotsky
I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

Then we played Clarkson for the ECAC championship and then again for the NC$$ NC, so Clarkson must have been pretty good too. (Of course beating them in the national title game wouldn't count towards SOS in any meaningful way. But I wonder why we didn't play Clarkson during the RS.

If I understand correctly, the ECAC at the time had three divisions because of the unusual mix of schools (we were Ivy), and 17 (?) schools - so since a round-robin wasn't practical, not all ECAC teams played all other ECAC teams during the RS like they do now.

The three divisions did not start until 1979-80. Everyone played the teams in their own division home and away and the teams in the other two divisions once. IIRC, before that every team played whomever they wanted to and could schedule.

Edit: The required scheduling apparently didn't start until 1982 [www.augenblick.org].

ursusminor

Beeeej

Swampy

Trotsky
I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

Then we played Clarkson for the ECAC championship and then again for the NC$$ NC, so Clarkson must have been pretty good too. (Of course beating them in the national title game wouldn't count towards SOS in any meaningful way. But I wonder why we didn't play Clarkson during the RS.

If I understand correctly, the ECAC at the time had three divisions because of the unusual mix of schools (we were Ivy), and 17 (?) schools - so since a round-robin wasn't practical, not all ECAC teams played all other ECAC teams during the RS like they do now.

The three divisions did not start until 1979-80. Everyone played the teams in their own division home and away and the teams in the other two divisions once. IIRC, before that every team played whomever they wanted to and could schedule.

Edit: The required scheduling apparently didn't start until 1982 [www.augenblick.org].

Indeed they did pick their own schedule and until at least 1973 the ECAC post-season teams and rankings were picked by committee and not by win percentage.

IIRC, during the 3-division period each division had to be represented in the top 4 seeds. That's how Harvard got a 4 seed in 1982 and 1984 with the 8th and 7th best records, respectively.

(Figures Harvard would benefit from a set aside.)

Jim Hyla

ursusminor

Beeeej

Swampy

Trotsky
I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

Then we played Clarkson for the ECAC championship and then again for the NC$$ NC, so Clarkson must have been pretty good too. (Of course beating them in the national title game wouldn't count towards SOS in any meaningful way. But I wonder why we didn't play Clarkson during the RS.

If I understand correctly, the ECAC at the time had three divisions because of the unusual mix of schools (we were Ivy), and 17 (?) schools - so since a round-robin wasn't practical, not all ECAC teams played all other ECAC teams during the RS like they do now.

The three divisions did not start until 1979-80. Everyone played the teams in their own division home and away and the teams in the other two divisions once. IIRC, before that every team played whomever they wanted to and could schedule.

Edit: The required scheduling apparently didn't start until 1982 [www.augenblick.org].

Indeed they did pick their own schedule and until at least 1973 the ECAC post-season teams and rankings were picked by committee and not by win percentage.

No, straight win percentage was used from at least 1967 (my freshmen year) onward. With everyone playing varying amounts of games, there weren't many tiebreakers to worry about. Being a math nerd, I used to run all the possible permutations before the last weekend, and as the scores came in on the last Saturday, we'd know exactly what the first round match-ups would be.

jkahn

Jim Hyla

ursusminor

Beeeej

Swampy

Trotsky
I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

Then we played Clarkson for the ECAC championship and then again for the NC$$ NC, so Clarkson must have been pretty good too. (Of course beating them in the national title game wouldn't count towards SOS in any meaningful way. But I wonder why we didn't play Clarkson during the RS.

If I understand correctly, the ECAC at the time had three divisions because of the unusual mix of schools (we were Ivy), and 17 (?) schools - so since a round-robin wasn't practical, not all ECAC teams played all other ECAC teams during the RS like they do now.

The three divisions did not start until 1979-80. Everyone played the teams in their own division home and away and the teams in the other two divisions once. IIRC, before that every team played whomever they wanted to and could schedule.

Edit: The required scheduling apparently didn't start until 1982 [www.augenblick.org].

Indeed they did pick their own schedule and until at least 1973 the ECAC post-season teams and rankings were picked by committee and not by win percentage.

No, straight win percentage was used from at least 1967 (my freshmen year) onward. With everyone playing varying amounts of games, there weren't many tiebreakers to worry about. Being a math nerd, I used to run all the possible permutations before the last weekend, and as the scores came in on the last Saturday, we'd know exactly what the first round match-ups would be.

I was a freshman at RPI in 64-65, but 68-69, my first year in grad school, was the first year that I really paid attention because it was the first year that RPI made the playoffs or was even seriously considered since I was in HS. Looking at the standings [www.augenblick.org], RPI was 7th but was seeded 5th and played 6th-place, but 4th-seeded, BU in Boston. The smoke-filled room was still used back then.

I should add that the RPI fandom believed that we should have gotten home ice because we defeated BU 7-0 in the regular season.

jkahn

Jim Hyla

ursusminor

Beeeej

Swampy

Trotsky
I'll bet the 1970 team's SOS was awful.

Turns out they don't withhold the trophy for that.

Then we played Clarkson for the ECAC championship and then again for the NC$$ NC, so Clarkson must have been pretty good too. (Of course beating them in the national title game wouldn't count towards SOS in any meaningful way. But I wonder why we didn't play Clarkson during the RS.

If I understand correctly, the ECAC at the time had three divisions because of the unusual mix of schools (we were Ivy), and 17 (?) schools - so since a round-robin wasn't practical, not all ECAC teams played all other ECAC teams during the RS like they do now.

The three divisions did not start until 1979-80. Everyone played the teams in their own division home and away and the teams in the other two divisions once. IIRC, before that every team played whomever they wanted to and could schedule.

Edit: The required scheduling apparently didn't start until 1982 [www.augenblick.org].

Indeed they did pick their own schedule and until at least 1973 the ECAC post-season teams and rankings were picked by committee and not by win percentage.

No, straight win percentage was used from at least 1967 (my freshmen year) onward. With everyone playing varying amounts of games, there weren't many tiebreakers to worry about. Being a math nerd, I used to run all the possible permutations before the last weekend, and as the scores came in on the last Saturday, we'd know exactly what the first round match-ups would be.

In 1972 Harvard had better % than BU, but BU got the #2 seed.
In 1970 BC had the #6 %, but got the #4 seed.
In 1969 Harvard had #3 %, with #2 seed. BU went from #6 to #4 and RPI #7 to #5.

So there was at least some mixng back then.

ugarte
I was going to say something like "Since the worst thing that can happen to our SOS is to have Army do whatever we do in the first game, Army will do whatever we do in the first game." Then I checked and Army is at 20, hardly a material difference from Providence at 17.

10-4 Army now #19 in pairwise, two slots above 6-3 Harvard. May change as evening progresses.

Rankings roundup: How the top 20 teams fared, Dec. 6-8

1 How far will CU fall?
2 How far will Harvard fall?

No. 1 Minnesota State (14-1-1)
12/06/2019 – Lake Superior State 1 at No. 1 Minnesota State 5
12/07/2019 – Lake Superior State 0 at No. 1 Minnesota State 2

No. 2 Cornell (10-1-0)
12/06/2019 – No. 2 Cornell 3 at No. 12 Harvard 1
12/07/2019 – No. 2 Cornell 1 at RV Dartmouth 2

No. 3 North Dakota (14-1-2)
12/06/2019 – No. 3 North Dakota 1 at No. 17 Western Michigan 0 (OT)
12/07/2019 – No. 3 North Dakota 8 at No. 17 Western Michigan 2

No. 4 Denver (9-4-3)
12/06/2019 – No. 4 Denver 1 at No. 20 Arizona State 4
12/07/2019 – No. 4 Denver 2 at No. 20 Arizona State 2 (OT)

No. 5 Clarkson (11-3-1)
12/07/2019 – St. Lawrence 1 at No. 5 Clarkson 3

No. 6 Penn State (12-5-0)
12/06/2019 – No. 6 Penn State 1 at Michigan 4
12/07/2019 – No. 6 Penn State 3 at Michigan 1

No. 7 Ohio State (10-4-2)
12/06/2019 – RV Minnesota 2 at No. 7 Ohio State 3 (OT)
12/07/2019 – RV Minnesota 1 at No. 7 Ohio State 1 (OT)

No. 8 Northeastern (10-5-2)
12/07/2019 – No. 8 Northeastern 3 at Boston University 6

No. 9 Notre Dame (8-6-2)
12/06/2019 – No. 9 Notre Dame 0 at No. 10 Boston College 4
12/08/2019 – No. 10 Boston College 6 at No. 9 Notre Dame 1

No. 10 Boston College (11-4-0)
12/06/2019 – No. 9 Notre Dame 0 at No. 10 Boston College 4
12/08/2019 – No. 10 Boston College 6 at No. 9 Notre Dame 1

No. 11 Massachusetts (11-4-1)
12/06/2019 – RV Maine 1 at No. 11 Massachusetts 5
12/07/2019 – RV Maine 1 at No. 11 Massachusetts 4

No. 12 Harvard (6-4-0)
12/03/2019 – No. 12 Harvard 2 at Boston University 5
12/06/2019 – No. 2 Cornell 3 at No. 12 Harvard 1
12/07/2019 – Colgate 4 at No. 12 Harvard 3 (OT)

No. 13 Bowling Green (11-5-1)
12/06/2019 – Alabama Huntsville 3 at No. 13 Bowling Green 9
12/07/2019 – Alabama Huntsville 2 at No. 13 Bowling Green 2 (OT)

No. 14 Minnesota Duluth (9-6-1)
12/06/2019 – No. 14 Minnesota Duluth 6 at No. 18 Omaha 3
12/07/2019 – No. 14 Minnesota Duluth 4 at No. 18 Omaha 3

No. 15 Providence (9-5-3)
12/06/2019 – No. 16 UMass Lowell 3 at No. 15 Providence 2
12/07/2019 – No. 15 Providence 4 at No. 16 UMass Lowell 1

No. 16 UMass Lowell (10-4-4)
12/06/2019 – No. 16 UMass Lowell 3 at No. 15 Providence 2
12/07/2019 – No. 15 Providence 4 at No. 16 UMass Lowell 1

No. 17 Western Michigan (7-7-2)
12/06/2019 – No. 3 North Dakota 1 at No. 17 Western Michigan 0 (OT)
12/07/2019 – No. 3 North Dakota 8 at No. 17 Western Michigan 2

No. 18 Omaha (6-6-2)
12/06/2019 – No. 14 Minnesota Duluth 6 at No. 18 Omaha 3
12/07/2019 – No. 14 Minnesota Duluth 4 at No. 18 Omaha 3

No. 19 Wisconsin (7-10-1)
12/06/2019 – No. 19 Wisconsin 0 at RV Michigan State 3
12/07/2019 – No. 19 Wisconsin 4 at RV Michigan State 5 (OT)

No. 20 Arizona State (8-4-2)
12/06/2019 – No. 4 Denver 1 at No. 20 Arizona State 4
12/07/2019 – No. 4 Denver 2 at No. 20 Arizona State 2 (OT)

RV = Received Votes

Cornell will fall to 4, Harvard will fall into RV.

Third.

Denver, Penn State, Ohio State all had weekends similar or worse than ours. Clarkson isn't passing us by winning one game vs SLU.

Dafatone
Third.

Denver, Penn State, Ohio State all had weekends similar or worse than ours.

Doesn't matter. EZAC. Don't call it a comeback.

Trotsky

Dafatone
Third.

Denver, Penn State, Ohio State all had weekends similar or worse than ours.

Doesn't matter. EZAC. Don't call it a comeback.

I don't see a team that went 0-1-1 last weekend passing us, but I could be wrong.

You weren't wrong.

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - December 9, 2019
Rnk	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Minnesota State	(43)	14-1-1	992	1
2	North Dakota	(6)	14-1-2	937	3
3	Cornell	        (1)	10-1-0	890	2
4	Clarkson		11-3-1	826	5
5	Boston College		11-4-0	746	10
6	Ohio State		10-4-2	699	7
7	Penn State		12-5-0	684	6
8	Denver		         9-4-3	652	4
9	Massachusetts		11-4-1	618	11
10	Bowling Green		11-5-1	500	13
11	Minnesota Duluth	 9-6-1	495	14
12	Northeastern		10-5-2	425	8
13	Providence		 9-5-3	381	15
14	UMass Lowell		10-4-4	373	16
15	Notre Dame		 8-6-2	334	9
16	Arizona State		 8-4-2	264	20
17	Harvard		         6-4-0	217	12
18	Michigan State		 8-7-1	127	NR
19	Western Michigan	 7-7-2	89	17
20	Sacred Heart		11-6-1	56	NR

Others receiving votes: Michigan Tech 52, Northern Michigan 30, 
Omaha 25, RIT 13, Army 13, Quinnipiac 13, Wisconsin 12, 
Boston University 9, Alaska 6, Colorado College 5, 
Dartmouth 5, Bemidji State 5, Maine 3, Colgate 3, St. Cloud 1

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Men's College Hockey Poll
December 9, 2019
	Team	               (First) Points Last Poll	Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	Minnesota State University (34) 510	1	14-1-1	11
2	University of North Dakota 	469	3	14-1-2	7
3	Cornell University 	        435	2	10-1-0	11
4	Boston College 	                361	7	11-4-0	8
5	Clarkson University 	        338	5	11-3-1	11
6	Ohio State University 	        323	8	10-4-2	11
7	Penn State University 	        309	6	12-5-0	11
8	University of Denver 	        290	4	9-4-3	11
9	University of Massachusetts 	238	13	11-4-1	11
10	Bowling Green State University 	181	11	11-5-1	11
11	University of Minnesota Duluth 	165	14	9-6-1	11
12	Northeastern University 	114	12	10-5-2	11
13	University Massachusetts Lowell  95	15	10-4-4	4
14	University of Notre Dame 	 87	10	8-6-2	11
15	Arizona State University 	 66	NR	8-4-2	1

Others receiving votes: Providence College 58, Harvard University 25, 
Michigan Tech University 10, Northern Michigan University 5, Michigan State University 1.

USCHO Division I Women's Poll - December 9, 2019
Rnk	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Wisconsin	(11)	18-1-1	146	1
2	Minnesota	(4)	15-1-3	137	2
3	Northeastern		14-2-0	114	3
4	Cornell		        11-1-1	112	4
5	Ohio State		10-4-4	82	5
6	Clarkson		14-2-4	74	7
7	Princeton		10-3-0	59	6
8	Boston University	12-4-1	50	9
9	Boston College		11-6-2	22	8
10	Minnesota Duluth	 8-8-2	16	10

Others receiving votes: Harvard 6, Mercyhurst 5, 
Quinnipiac 1, Robert Morris 1

CHN PWR

Rk 	Team 	       PCWs 	RPI 	Rk 	QWB-† 	W-L-T 	Win % 	Wgtd Win % - ‡
1 	Minnesota State 59 	.6658 	1 	.0148 	14-1-1 	.9062 	.8861
2 	North Dakota 	58 	.6648 	2 	.0073 	14-1-2 	.8824 	.9000
3 	Cornell 	57 	.6455 	3 	.0035 	10-1-0 	.9091 	.9273
4 	Denver 	        56 	.5876 	5 	.0075 	9-4-3 	.6562 	.6582
5 	Boston College 	55 	.5883 	4 	.0028 	11-4-0 	.7333 	.7632
6 	Penn State 	54 	.5732 	6 	.0024 	12-5-0 	.7059 	.6829
7 	Bowling Green 	53 	.5644 	7 	.0059 	11-5-1 	.6765 	.6667
8 	Ohio State 	52 	.5609 	8 	.0038 	10-4-2 	.6875 	.6867
9 	Arizona State 	51 	.5565 	9 	.0036 	8-4-2 	.6429 	.6364
10 	Massachusetts 	50 	.5554 	10 	.0017 	11-4-1 	.7188 	.7123
11 	Mass.-Lowell 	49 	.5506 	11 	.0044 	10-4-4 	.6667 	.6413
12 	Minnesota-Duluth48 	.5499 	12 	.0046 	9-6-1 	.5938 	.5823
13 	Michigan Tech 	47 	.5474 	13 	.0023 	10-7-0 	.5882 	.6000
14 	Notre Dame 	46 	.5444 	14 	.0038 	8-6-2 	.5625 	.5676
15 	Clarkson 	45 	.5436 	15 	.0000 	11-3-1 	.7667 	.7662
16 	Providence 	44 	.5430 	16 	.0064 	9-5-3 	.6176 	.5977
17 	Northeastern 	43 	.5407 	17 	.0020 	10-5-2 	.6471 	.6625
18 	Michigan State 	42 	.5373 	18 	.0043 	8-7-1 	.5312 	.5455
19 	Colorado College41 	.5279 	19 	.0005 	6-5-1 	.5417 	.5397
20 	Sacred Heart 	40 	.5277 	20 	.0000 	11-6-1 	.6389 	.6392
21 	Bemidji State 	39 	.5232 	21 	.0000 	8-5-3 	.5938 	.6000
22 	Western Michigan38 	.5224 	22 	.0064 	7-7-2 	.5000 	.5000
23 	Army 	        37 	.5189 	23 	.0000 	11-5-0 	.6875 	.6829
24 	RIT 	        36 	.5166 	24 	.0019 	10-6-2 	.6111 	.6111
25 	Alaska 	        35 	.5160 	25 	.0063 	10-10-0 .5000 	.5000
26 	Maine 	        34 	.5153 	26 	.0009 	8-7-3 	.5278 	.5679
27 	Harvard 	33 	.5150 	27 	.0000 	6-4-0 	.6000 	.5769
28 	Quinnipiac 	31 	.5133 	28 	.0026 	7-7-1 	.5000 	.5072
29 	Dartmouth 	30 	.5095 	29 	.0046 	4-3-1 	.5625 	.5641
30 	Northern Michigan30 	.5076 	30 	.0004 	8-6-2 	.5625 	.5488

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Women's College Hockey Poll
December 10, 2019
	Team	            Points (First) Last	Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	University of Wisconsin 186 (15)2	18-1-1	12
2	University of Minnesota 173 (4)	1	15-1-3	12
3	Cornell University 	145	4	11-1-1	12
4	Northeastern University 139	3	14-2-0	12
5	Ohio State University 	 91	7	10-4-4	12
6	Clarkson University 	 79	5	14-2-4	12
7	Princeton University 	 68	6	10-3-0	12
8	Boston University 	 67	8	12-4-1	 9
9	Boston College 	         30    10	11-6-2	11
10	Univer Minnesota Duluth  22	9	 8-8-2	10

Others receiving votes: Harvard University 4, 
Mercyhurst University 4, Qunnipiac(?) University 1, 
Robert Morris University 1.

Women's National Collegiate PairWise Rankings

Rnk	Team	       PWR	W-L-T	W%	W% Rnk	RPI	RPI Rnk

1	Wisconsin	40	18-1-1	0.9250	1	0.7044*	1
2	Cornell	        39	11-1-1	0.8846	2	0.6865*	2
3	Minnesota	38	15-1-3	0.8684	4	0.6780*	3
4	Northeastern	37	14-2-0	0.8750	3	0.6480*	4
5	Ohio State	36	10-4-4	0.6667	9	0.6130	5
6	Princeton	35	10-3-0	0.7692	6	0.6122*	6
7	Clarkson	34	14-2-4	0.8000	5	0.6041*	7
8	Boston Univer   33	12-4-1	0.7353	7	0.5940*	8
9	Harvard	        31	 7-4-0	0.6364	11	0.5720*	9
9	Boston College	31	11-6-2	0.6316	13	0.5564*	10
11	Minnesota Duluth30	 8-8-2	0.5000	22	0.5517	11
12	Robert Morris	29	10-6-2	0.6111	14	0.5453*	12
13	Quinnipiac	28	 9-7-3	0.5526	17	0.5374*	13
14	Mercyhurst	27	10-5-1	0.6562	10	0.5359	14
15	Colgate	        26	 9-8-3	0.5250	21	0.5335*	15

Mankato lost to NMU tonight. Cornell moves to #2 in PWR and NoDak becomes the third #1 in a week.

Rankings roundup: How the top 20 teams fared, Dec. 13-15 By USCHO Staff -

No. 1 Minnesota State (15-2-1)
12/13/2019 – No. 1 Minnesota State 5 at RV Northern Michigan 2
12/14/2019 – No. 1 Minnesota State 1 at RV Northern Michigan 4

No. 2 North Dakota (14-1-2)
Did not play.

No. 3 Cornell (10-1-0)
Did not play.

No. 4 Clarkson (12-3-2)
12/13/2019 – No. 4 Clarkson 2 at RV Michigan Tech 2 (OT)
12/14/2019 – No. 4 Clarkson 4 at RV Michigan Tech 2

No. 5 Boston College (11-4-0)
Did not play.

No. 6 Ohio State (10-4-2)
Did not play.

No. 7 Penn State (13-6-0)
12/13/2019 – No. 7 Penn State 4 at No. 15 Notre Dame 2
12/14/2019 – No. 7 Penn State 0 at No. 15 Notre Dame 3

No. 8 Denver (11-4-3)
12/13/2019 – RV Colorado College 0 at No. 8 Denver 3
12/14/2019 – No. 8 Denver 3 at RV Colorado College 1

No. 9 Massachusetts (12-4-1)
12/10/2019 – No. 9 Massachusetts 4 at Brown 0

No. 10 Bowling Green (12-6-1)
12/13/2019 – No. 10 Bowling Green 2 at Lake Superior 0
12/14/2019 – No. 10 Bowling Green 2 at Lake Superior 3 (OT)

No. 11 Minnesota Duluth (9-6-1)
Did not play.

No. 12 Northeastern (11-5-2)
12/14/2019 – RV Dartmouth 4 at No. 12 Northeastern 6

No. 13 Providence (9-5-3)
Did not play.

No. 14 UMass Lowell (10-4-4)
Did not play.

No. 15 Notre Dame (9-7-2)
12/13/2019 – No. 7 Penn State 4 at No. 15 Notre Dame 2
12/14/2019 – No. 7 Penn State 0 at No. 15 Notre Dame 3

No. 16 Arizona State (9-5-2)
12/14/2019 – No. 16 Arizona State 4 at No. 18 Michigan State 3
12/15/2019 – No. 16 Arizona State 0 at No. 18 Michigan State 1 (OT)

No. 17 Harvard (6-4-0)
Did not play.

No. 18 Michigan State (9-8-1)
12/14/2019 – No. 16 Arizona State 4 at No. 18 Michigan State 3
12/15/2019 – No. 16 Arizona State 0 at No. 18 Michigan State 1 (OT)

No. 19 Western Michigan (7-7-2)
Did not play.

No. 20 Sacred Heart (11-6-1)
Did not play.

RV = Received Votes

12/16: 3rd in USCHO with (4) first place votes. USA may already be in remission.

Late this week. I was at a Keb' Mo concert last night.

USCHO Division I Men's Poll - December 16, 2019
Rnk	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	North Dakota	(33)	14-1-2	979	2
2	Minnesota State	(13)	15-2-1	948	1
3	Cornell	(4)	        10-1-0	917	3
4	Clarkson		12-3-2	813	4
5	Boston College		11-4-0	789	5
6	Ohio State		10-4-2	699	6
6	Denver		        11-4-3	699	8
8	Penn State		13-6-0	647	7
9	Massachusetts		12-4-1	628	9
10	Minnesota Duluth	 9-6-1	506	11
11	Bowling Green		12-6-1	463	10
12	Northeastern		11-5-2	450	12
13	Providence		 9-5-3	407	13
14	UMass Lowell		10-4-4	397	14
15	Notre Dame		 9-7-2	311	15
16	Arizona State		 9-5-2	278	16
17	Harvard		         6-4-0	174	17
18	Michigan State		 9-8-1	145	18
19	Western Michigan	 7-7-2	77	19
20	Sacred Heart		11-6-1	56	20

Others receiving votes: Northern Michigan 31, Army 31, 
Michigan Tech 31, Alaska 7, Bemidji State 5, 
Boston University 4, Quinnipiac 4, RIT 3, Dartmouth 1

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Men's College Hockey Poll
December 16, 2019
	Team	             Points  (First) Last Poll	Record	Weeks in Poll
	
1	University North Dakota 500	(26)	2	14-1-2	8
2	Minnesota State Univer 	472	(8)	1	15-2-1	12
3	Cornell University 	448		3	10-1-0	12
4	Boston College 	        382		4	11-4-0	9
5	Clarkson University 	348		5	12-3-2	12
6	University of Denver 	340		8	11-4-3	12
7	Ohio State University 	304		6	10-4-2	12
8	Penn State University 	286		7	13-6-0	12
9	Univer Massachusetts 	240		9	12-4-1	12
10	Bowling Green State  	166		10	12-6-1	3
11	Univer Minnesota Duluth 160		11	 9-6-1	12
12	Northeastern University 126		12	11-5-2	12
13	U Massachusetts Lowell 	114		13	10-4-4	5
14	Arizona State University 70		15	 9-5-2	1
15	Providence College 	 66		NR	 9-5-3	8

Others receiving votes: University of Notre Dame 36, 
Harvard University 16, Michigan Tech University 6.

USCHO Division I Women's Poll - December 9, 2019
Rnk	Team	     (First)	Record	Points	Last Poll

1	Wisconsin	(11)	18-1-1	146	1
2	Minnesota	(4)	15-1-3	137	2
3	Northeastern		14-2-0	114	3
4	Cornell		        11-1-1	112	4
5	Ohio State		10-4-4	82	5
6	Clarkson		14-2-4	74	7
7	Princeton		10-3-0	59	6
8	Boston University	12-4-1	50	9
9	Boston College		11-6-2	22	8
10	Minnesota Duluth	 8-8-2	16	10

Others receiving votes: Harvard 6, Mercyhurst 5, 
Robert Morris 1, Quinnipiac 1

Jim Hyla
Late this week. I was at a Keb' Mo concert last night.

Very cool.

CHN PWR
Rk 	Team 	       PCWs 	RPI 	Rk      QWB-† 	W-L-T 	Win % 	Wgtd Win % - ‡
1 	North Dakota 	59 	.6598 	1 	.0066 	14-1-2 	.8824 	.9000
2 	Cornell 	58 	.6462 	2 	.0060 	10-1-0 	.9091 	.9273
3 	Minnesota State 57 	.6319 	3 	.0106 	15-2-1 	.8611 	.8539
4 	Denver 	        56 	.5916 	4 	.0065 	11-4-3 	.6944 	.6966
5 	Boston College 	55 	.5909 	5 	.0028 	11-4-0 	.7333 	.7632
6 	Penn State 	54 	.5689 	6 	.0029 	13-6-0 	.6842 	.6739
7 	Ohio State 	53 	.5593 	7 	.0041 	10-4-2 	.6875 	.6867
8 	Clarkson 	52 	.5591 	8 	.0008 	12-3-2 	.7647 	.7727
9 	Arizona State 	51 	.5578 	9 	.0039 	9-5-2 	.6250 	.6316
10 	Massachusetts 	50 	.5561 	10 	.0028 	12-4-1 	.7353 	.7342
11 	Bowling Green 	49 	.5546 	11 	.0044 	12-6-1 	.6579 	.6598
12 	Mass.-Lowell 	48 	.5484 	12 	.0047 	10-4-4 	.6667 	.6413
13 	Providence 	47 	.5468 	13 	.0078 	9-5-3 	.6176 	.5977
14 	Minnesota-Duluth46 	.5464 	14 	.0041 	9-6-1 	.5938 	.5823
15 	Northeastern 	45 	.5457 	15 	.0020 	11-5-2 	.6667 	.6786
16 	Notre Dame 	44 	.5414 	16 	.0052 	9-7-2 	.5556 	.5476
17 	Michigan State 	43 	.5389 	17 	.0048 	9-8-1 	.5278 	.5287
18 	Michigan Tech 	42 	.5349 	18 	.0022 	10-8-1 	.5526 	.5545
19 	Army 	        41 	.5266 	19 	.0000 	12-5-1 	.6944 	.6989
20 	Sacred Heart 	40 	.5252 	20 	.0000 	11-6-1 	.6389 	.6392
21 	Bemidji State 	39 	.5234 	21 	.0000 	8-5-3 	.5938 	.6000
22 	Harvard 	38 	.5195 	22 	.0000 	6-4-0 	.6000 	.5769

USA Today/USA Hockey Magazine Women's College Hockey Poll
December 17, 2019
	Team	              Points (First) Last Poll	Record	Weeks in Poll

1	University of Wisconsin 190	(19)	1	18-1-1	13
2	University of Minnesota 169		2	15-1-3	13
3	Northeastern University 148		4	14-2-0	13
4	Cornell University 	139		3	11-1-1	13
5	Clarkson University 	100		6	14-2-4	13
6	Ohio State University 	 95		5	11-5-4	13
7	Princeton University 	 78		7	11-4-0	13
8	Boston University 	 55		8	12-4-1	10
9	Boston College 	         30		9	11-6-2	12
10	Univer Minnesota Duluth  25		10	8-8-2	11

Others receiving votes: Harvard University 6, 
Mercyhurst University 4, Robert Morris University 2.

USCHO Women's National Collegiate PairWise Rankings

Rnk	Team	       PWR	W-L-T	W%	W% Rnk	RPI	RPI Rnk

1	Wisconsin	40	18-1-1	0.9250	1	0.7056*	1
2	Cornell	        39	11-1-1	0.8846	2	0.6859*	2
3	Minnesota	38	15-1-3	0.8684	4	0.6782*	3
4	Northeastern	37	14-2-0	0.8750	3	0.6514*	4
5	Princeton	36	11-4-0	0.7333	7	0.6133*	5
6	Ohio State	35	11-5-4	0.6500	10	0.6122	6
7	Clarkson	34	14-2-4	0.8000	5	0.6038*	7
8	Boston Univers  33	12-4-1	0.7353	6	0.5964*	8
9	Harvard	        31	7-4-0	0.6364	11	0.5745*	9
9	Boston College	31	11-6-2	0.6316	12	0.5577*	10
11	Minnesota Duluth30	8-8-2	0.5000	22	0.5529	11
12	Robert Morris	29	10-6-2	0.6111	13	0.5439*	12
13	Quinnipiac	28	9-7-3	0.5526	17	0.5388*	13