Scores that ratings are based upon. Scores through February 26, 2012.
Maximum Goal Differential = 7 See Rankings Without Considering Goal Differential Below Division 1 (Based on D1 v. D1 games only) RANK TEAM W L T GmPerf Sched Total Last 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,Wisconsin University of,_________________ 11 3 0, 2.6, 7.5, 10.12, 9.13 2,Minnesota University of,_________________ 14 6 0, 2.0, 7.9, 9.91, 8.78 3,Rhode Island University of,______________ 23 6 0, 1.9, 7.9, 9.81, 9.83 4,Robert Morris University (IL),____________ 24 8 1, 2.1, 7.1, 9.20, 10.57 5,Liberty University,_______________________ 16 9 1, 1.5, 7.5, 9.01, 9.12 6,Northeastern University,__________________ 11 10 1, 0.6, 8.4, 8.99, 7.28 7,Michigan State University,________________ 23 7 0, 2.4, 6.5, 8.95, 7.51 8,Penn State University,____________________ 12 7 1, 1.4, 7.6, 8.95, 8.79 9,Massachusetts University of,_____________ 12 12 2, 0.2, 8.3, 8.49, 9.45 10,Grand Valley State University,____________ 14 13 3, 1.5, 6.3, 7.80, 6.97 11,Michigan University of,__________________ 15 10 2, 1.1, 6.3, 7.38, 8.51 12,Ohio State University,____________________ 15 12 2, 1.2, 5.7, 6.88, 7.20 13,Vermont University of,___________________ 6 12 0, -1.1, 7.1, 6.09, 6.99 14,Miami University,_________________________ 8 13 1, -0.8, 6.2, 5.38, 5.79 15,Buffalo University at,___________________ 3 13 1, -3.0, 6.6, 3.61, 3.74 16,Colorado University of,__________________ 4 14 1, -3.4, 6.8, 3.44, 4.33 17,Colorado State University,________________ 3 14 2, -2.9, 5.5, 2.63, 2.17 18,Western Michigan University,______________ 3 16 0, -3.8, 6.2, 2.39, 1.63 19,Northern Michigan University,_____________ 0 15 0, -6.4, 7.5, 1.09, 1.20 Maximum Goal Differential = 1 (i.e. just considers W, L, T and schedule strength) Division 1 RANK TEAM W L T GmPerf Sched Total Last 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,Wisconsin University of,_________________ 11 3 0, 0.6, 7.2, 7.78, 7.52 2,Rhode Island University of,______________ 23 6 0, 0.6, 7.1, 7.71, 7.92 3,Minnesota University of,_________________ 14 6 0, 0.4, 7.2, 7.60, 7.42 4,Robert Morris University (IL),____________ 24 8 1, 0.5, 7.0, 7.50, 7.91 5,Michigan State University,________________ 23 7 0, 0.5, 6.9, 7.43, 7.30 6,Liberty University,_______________________ 16 9 1, 0.3, 7.1, 7.36, 7.03 7,Penn State University,____________________ 12 7 1, 0.3, 7.1, 7.35, 7.53 8,Northeastern University,__________________ 11 10 1, 0.0, 7.3, 7.32, 6.95 9,Massachusetts University of,_____________ 12 12 2, 0.0, 7.2, 7.25, 7.39 10,Michigan University of,__________________ 15 10 2, 0.2, 6.9, 7.05, 7.30 11,Grand Valley State University,____________ 14 13 3, 0.0, 6.9, 6.92, 6.51 12,Ohio State University,____________________ 15 12 2, 0.1, 6.8, 6.87, 6.95 13,Vermont University of,___________________ 6 12 0, -0.3, 7.1, 6.72, 6.91 14,Miami University,_________________________ 8 13 1, -0.2, 6.8, 6.61, 6.41 15,Colorado University of,__________________ 4 14 1, -0.5, 6.9, 6.41, 6.78 16,Buffalo University at,___________________ 3 13 1, -0.6, 6.9, 6.28, 6.33 17,Western Michigan University,______________ 3 16 0, -0.7, 6.8, 6.15, 6.04 18,Colorado State University,________________ 3 14 2, -0.6, 6.7, 6.14, 5.91 19,Northern Michigan University,_____________ 0 15 0, -1.0, 7.0, 6.05, 5.93 The program starts all teams with an equal arbitrary value and then adjusts them all recursively based on game scores until the lowest cumulative error between expected goal differentials and actual goal differentials is reached (convergence). One effect often noticed is that a team's rating can change slightly without playing due to previous opponents playing which affects their rating and their opponent's rating, etc. The Total column is in goal units and the difference in this value between any two teams is the predicted goal differential for a game played at a neutral site between those two teams. It should be noted that these rankings are an average performance value for each team for the entire season, all games are equally weighted, so a team's latest game may make up only 1/40th of a teams rating at the end of the season. Games that go to shootouts for decision are considered ties for ratings purposes. Actually, there are two different rankings listed below. The first is as described above with the maximum goal differential used per game set at 7. This ordering ends up similar to CCHP, although differences do arise due to CCHP considering home ice advantage and CCHP not using a goal differential limit. The second ranking sets maximum goal differential at 1, thereby just considering whether the game was won, lost, or tied (and strength of opponent). Note that the Total column in the GD=1 ranking is therefore in win percentage units rather than goal units. A rated .01 ahead of B can be interpreted as saying that if these two teams played exclusively against each other, A's predicted winning percentage is 1 percentage point higher than B's (i.e. A's predicted winning percentage vs. B would be .495, B's against A would be .505). However, since the teams do not play exclusively against the other it is actually a little bit more complex than above as teams can be ranked as high as 1.0 above their average opponent (if they were undefeated and untied) and as low as 1.0 below their average opponent (if they lost all of their games). Not surprisingly, the ordering ends up very similar to KRACH . Currently, teams with as few as 3 scores are ranked. The more games that go into a team's ranking, the more accurate their ranking will be.Please send any missing scores or corrections to iascores@yahoo.com using the score submission spreadsheet.
Links to other ratings: High School Rankings for 25 States High School National Rankings New England Prep Midget Minor AAA Midget Major AAA Men's NCAA D1 USHL NAHL ACHA College ClubUSHSHO.com High School Ice Hockey Forums
Over 4000 registered members, HS message boards for over 30 states + midget, junior, college, and pro hockey forums! Receive email when this page changes