ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

Rainman is correct on the tiebreaker procedure. History shows that multi-way ties in ECAC play are broken in a "top-down" fashion.

Brown would be granted 8th in a 4-way tie and then the tiebreaker procedure would start over as a three-way tie between SLU, Dartmouth, and Harvard, which SLU wins on head-to-head play to take 9th.

Since FlagDUDE's Brown / SLU / Dartmouth / Harvard tiebreaking guide was either incomprehensible or wrong, you can also check out WaP's tiebreaking guide to see who actually wins what.

Then the ECAC site needs to make that clear, because "separated from the pack" is able to happen in either direction. Plus, does your history show that someone is left off on the bottom? Please cite.

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

Tie-breaker is still broken; Yale can't get the bye because Cornell would take the tie-break. Even in a three-way, Cornell would have 6 points to Clarkson's 4 and Yale's 2.

Gah. I dunno what's wrong. I'll fix it in the offseason.

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

FIXED IT. Calling a function doesn't do much if it doesn't return anything.

EXHAUSTIVE (Every possible outcome (3^6) checked, weighted for odds of occurrence)

   |  KRACH |     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12 |Avg Rk |AvgPts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Un |  402.2 | [B]100.0[/B]     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |  [B]1.00[/B] | 36.50
Cg |  189.2 |     x  [B]54.6[/B]  45.4     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |  2.45 | 28.39
Qu |  267.6 |     x  45.4  [B]54.6[/B]     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |  2.55 | 28.27
Cr |  200.8 |     x     x     x  [B]85.6[/B]  14.4     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |  4.14 | 25.30
Ck |  138.6 |     x     x     x  14.4  [B]59.2[/B]  26.4     x     x     x     x     x     x |  5.12 | 23.73
Ya |  161.2 |     x     x     x     x  26.4  33.4  [B]40.2[/B]     x     x     x     x     x |  6.14 | 23.06
RP |  140.0 |     x     x     x     x     x  40.2  [B]59.8[/B]     x     x     x     x     x |  6.60 | 21.94
Br |  107.1 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x  [B]42.6[/B]  34.9  19.4   3.1     x |  8.83 | 17.50
SL |  106.9 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x  [B]39.2[/B]  38.2  13.4   9.2     x |  8.93 | 17.49
Ha |   98.2 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   4.8  15.3  16.3  [B]63.6[/B]     x | 10.39 | 16.70
Da |   70.7 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x  13.5  11.5  [B]50.9[/B]  24.1     x |  9.86 | 16.61
Pr |   29.4 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x [B]100.0[/B] | [B]12.00[/B] |  8.51

[b]Bold[/b] is each team's most likely rank.
0.0 means the team could place in that position, but there is less than 0.05% chance of that happening.
x means the team cannot place in that position.

   |    Br    SL    Ha    Da    Pr |   BYE
------------------------------------------
RP |  12.9  11.7  35.3  40.1     x |     x
Br |        30.4   3.8   8.4     x |     x
Ya |   8.8   8.5  27.8  28.5  26.4 |     x
Ck |   0.8   2.4  16.8   6.4  59.2 |  14.4
SL |  26.0        10.1   3.2     x |     x
Cr |     x     x     x     x  14.4 |  85.6
Ha |   4.8     x           x     x |     x
Da |   4.2   7.8   1.5           x |     x

[u]Bye[/u]
Union
Colgate
Quinnipiac

Hosts are listed top to bottom, visitors are across the top
(e.g., RPI has a 12.9% chance of hosting Brown in the first round).

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

FIXED IT. Calling a function doesn't do much if it doesn't return anything.

Pulled a Hardwick, eh? You don't know how many times I've messed that one up.

 

[CollegeHockeyRinkReport]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/201...tandings-and-playoff-picture-union-quinnipiac

Here's the updated standings and playoff picture in our table

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

FINAL STANDINGS:

UC 37 [1]
COL 29 [2]
QU 28 [3]
COR 26 [4]
--- Bye Lock - 25 () ---
CCT 24 [5]
YAL 24 [6]
RPI 21 [7]
SLU 18 [8]
--- Home Lock - 18 () ---
BRN 17 [9]
DC 16 [10]
HVD 16 [11]
PU 8 [12]

CCT takes the tiebreak over Yale on ECAC wins.
Dartmouth takes the tiebreak over Harvard on ECAC wins.

 

[hockeyenthusiast]

The first full weekend of ECAC play is in the books and once again, Quinnipiac looks like the team to beat.

Standings
1. Quinnipiac (37)
2. Cornell (27)
3. St. Lawrence (26)
4. Yale (25.0)
-----
5. RPI (24.9)
6. Union (24.7)
7. Harvard (24.5)
8. Brown(22.2)
-----
9. Clarkson (21.8)
10. Colgate (19)
11. Princeton (8)
12. Dartmouth (3)

(Rounding Error = -1)

Quite the log jam from 4th to 7th with four teams within half a point of each other.

The Monte Carlo (again, only 1,000,000 simulations out of a possible 599,003,433,304,810,403,471,059,943,169,868,346,577,158,542,512,617,035,467 (or ~10[SUP]56.8[/SUP]) different ways the rest of the season could go) is pretty similar, with a couple of teams transposed here and there:

   |  KRACH |     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12 |Avg Rk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qu |  716.1 |  [B]94.2[/B]   4.5   0.9   0.2   0.1   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0     x     x     x |  1.08
SL |  236.9 |   1.8  [B]21.9[/B]  17.9  14.8  12.4  10.3   8.3   6.3   4.3   2.0   0.0     x |  4.50
Cr |  249.5 |   0.6  15.1  [B]15.3[/B]  14.5  13.4  12.2  10.8   8.7   6.3   3.1   0.0     x |  5.08
Ya |  181.4 |   0.9  [B]14.9[/B]  14.7  13.8  12.9  11.9  10.7   9.1   7.0   4.0   0.0     x |  5.17
Un |  174.8 |   1.0  [B]14.7[/B]  14.2  13.5  12.8  11.8  10.7   9.3   7.5   4.5   0.0     x |  5.24
RP |  222.0 |   0.8  12.1  13.4  [B]13.7[/B]  13.5  12.8  11.7  10.0   7.7   4.2   0.0     x |  5.38
Ha |  188.7 |   0.3   8.8  11.4  12.8  13.5  [B]13.7[/B]  13.1  11.8   9.4   5.2   0.0     x |  5.76
Ck |  144.6 |   0.2   4.3   6.1   7.8   9.6  11.5  13.7  16.3  [B]17.3[/B]  13.0   0.2   0.0 |  6.90
Br |  167.9 |   0.1   2.9   4.7   6.5   8.3  10.4  12.9  15.9  [B]19.4[/B]  18.7   0.3   0.0 |  7.31
Cg |  115.0 |   0.0   0.7   1.4   2.4   3.6   5.4   8.0  12.6  21.0  [B]43.6[/B]   1.2   0.0 |  8.61
Pr |   33.0 |     x     x     x   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.1   1.7  [B]91.5[/B]   6.6 | 11.05
Da |   10.6 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0   6.6  [B]93.4[/B] | 11.93

[B]Bold[/B] is each team's most likely rank.
0.0 means the team did place in that position, but less than 500 times.
x means the team never finished in that position.

If there's one thing Princeton was is consistent. 8 points was what they finished with.

 

[burgie12]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

Then the ECAC site needs to make that clear, because "separated from the pack" is able to happen in either direction. Plus, does your history show that someone is left off on the bottom? Please cite.

Real-life examples...
2010-11 men's and women's

Men's:
Cornell wins 4th on head-to-head (CU 3-1-0 vs RPI 1-3-0 vs PU 2-2-0). By your mark, RPI should be placed in 6th and Princeton in 5th. However, the tiebreaker is restarted between just RPI and Princeton.

RPI wins on Record vs Top 4 (4-4-0 vs 1-7-0) after splitting the season series and finishing with identical records, giving the Engineers 5th.

Women's:
RPI takes 8th on head-to-head (RPI 2-1-1 vs Yale 1-2-1 vs Colgate 2-2-0). Again, you would've placed Yale in 10th and Colgate in 9th.

In reality, Yale wins on Record vs Top 4 (1-6-1 vs 1-7-0) after splitting the season series and finishing with identical records and finishes 9th.

To answer your question, if it's a three-way tie and two teams split with each other and both sweep a third, then the three-way tiebreaker will be considered "finished" with Team A and B advancing and starting a new tiebreaker and Team C finishing in 3rd of those three teams.

There is no history of that occurrence since these given tiebreakers were put into place, but it is the method used by slack.net and I have adopted the same rules. Based on the history of the league with three-way tiebreakers and the language of the release, I believe that to be an accurate interpretation of the guidelines.

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

Well, here we are at season's end. Playoffs loom, and it's time to look back at how terrible my predictions were (spoiler alert: they weren't). First, let's see the final standings.

Exhaustive:

EXHAUSTIVE (Every possible outcome (1) checked, weighted for odds of occurrence)

   |  KRACH |     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12 |Avg Rk |AvgPts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Un |  414.4 |   100     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |   1.0 |  37.0
Cg |  192.7 |     x   100     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |   2.0 |  29.0
Qu |  260.0 |     x     x   100     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |   3.0 |  28.0
Cr |  210.7 |     x     x     x   100     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |   4.0 |  26.0
Ck |  138.6 |     x     x     x     x   100     x     x     x     x     x     x     x |   5.0 |  24.0
Ya |  170.8 |     x     x     x     x     x   100     x     x     x     x     x     x |   6.0 |  24.0
RP |  130.4 |     x     x     x     x     x     x   100     x     x     x     x     x |   7.0 |  21.0
SL |  107.5 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   100     x     x     x     x |   8.0 |  18.0
Br |  102.2 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   100     x     x     x |   9.0 |  17.0
Da |   66.8 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   100     x     x |  10.0 |  16.0
Ha |   92.9 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   100     x |  11.0 |  16.0
Pr |   27.4 |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   100 |  12.0 |   8.0

[b]Bold[/b] is each team's most likely rank.
0.0 means the team could place in that position, but there is less than 0.05% chance of that happening.
x means the team cannot place in that position.

Playoffs:

   |  Br    Ha    Da    Pr 
---------------------------
RP |   x     x   100     x 
Ya |   x   100     x     x 
Ck |   x     x     x   100 
SL | 100     x     x     x 

[u]Bye[/u]
Union
Colgate
Quinnipiac
Cornell

Hosts are listed top to bottom, visitors are across the top
(e.g., RPI has a 100% chance of hosting Dartmouth in the first round).

Back on November 17th, I gave you the following prediction: 1-Qu Ya Un Cg 5-Ck SL Cr RP 9-Br Ha Pr Da. You'll notice that no team was more than three spots away from their final position (if we include ties), though only Clarkson and Brown were dead on. From 1/19 on, only once (2/2, Colgate in 5th) did I have a team more than 2 spots away from their final resting place. All but my first three predictions (which were victims of small sample size) would have won vicb's contest in a landslide. I think that's pretty good.

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

What's that? You thought this thread would be done just because the regular season ended? Well that was pretty dumb of you. KRACH numbers don't stop having meaning in the playoffs! My ability to cobble together terrible Python code doesn't stop after 132 games! Let's simulate the playoffs! Now I realize that in the playoffs more than ever, KRACH's shortcomings with regard to momentum, home-ice, and pure motivation and desperation are amplified. That said, I ran 1,000,000 simulations of the ECAC Playoffs. Here's what happened:

      KRACH |   1st    QF    SF     F
-------------------------------------
Un |  418.3 |   [B]100[/B]  [B]92.8[/B]  [B]67.1[/B]  [B]44.2[/B]
Qu |  260.2 |   [B]100[/B]  [B]67.8[/B]  [B]39.2[/B]  18.0
Cg |  195.9 |   [B]100[/B]  [B]67.4[/B]  31.7  12.3
Cr |  211.7 |   [B]100[/B]  [B]64.3[/B]  27.8  12.3
Ya |  180.7 |  [B]89.0[/B]  35.1  13.6   5.8
RP |  137.2 |  [B]89.8[/B]  29.7   8.3   3.3
Ck |  126.8 |  [B]63.1[/B]  19.9   6.4   2.1
SL |  115.8 |  [B]79.3[/B]  16.5   4.4   1.6
Br |   96.5 |  20.7   3.5   0.8   0.3
Ha |   89.3 |  11.0   1.5   0.3   0.1
Pr |   32.8 |  36.9   0.5   0.1   0.0
Da |   64.5 |  10.2   0.9   0.2   0.0

Teams are sorted by likelihood to win the Whitelaw Cup.
[B]Bold[/B] highlights the teams most likely to advance.

Now for matchups! For each table, the team on the left hosts the team on the top. A '0.0' means the matchup could happen, but occurred fewer than 500 times. On the other hand, 'x' means the match-up either didn't or can't (more likely the latter) happen.

Quarterfinals:

   |    Ck    Ya    RP    SL    Br    Da    Ha    Pr
----------------------------------------------------
Un |     x     x     x  40.0  10.4   5.7   6.9  36.9
Cg |     x     x  50.4  32.9   8.6   4.1   4.0     x
Qu |     x  56.2  35.7   6.1   1.6   0.4     x     x
Cr |  63.1  32.9   3.6   0.3   0.1     x     x     x

Semifinals:

   |    Qu    Cr    Ck    Ya    RP    SL    Br    Da    Ha    Pr
----------------------------------------------------------------
Un |     x  27.2   7.4  19.2  23.9  11.1   2.4   0.6   0.9     x
Cg |  42.9  12.7   4.1   2.7   0.2   3.1   0.6   0.2   0.4   0.4
Qu |     x  15.0   4.9   3.1   0.2   1.1   0.2   0.1   0.1   0.1
Cr |     x     x     x   5.5   2.7   0.8   0.2   0.0   0.0   0.0
Ck |     x     x     x   2.6   0.6   0.3   0.1   0.0   0.0     x
Ya |     x     x     x     x   1.9   0.1   0.0   0.0     x   0.0
RP |     x     x     x     x     x   0.1   0.0     x   0.0   0.0
SL |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0   0.0   0.0
Br |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0   0.0     x
Da |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0     x

Finals:

   |    Cg    Qu    Cr    Ck    Ya    RP    SL    Br    Da    Ha    Pr
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Un |  20.0  26.0  12.0   2.8   5.0   1.1   0.1   0.0   0.0     x     x
Cg |     x   1.2   5.0   1.0   3.3   1.0   0.1   0.0   0.0     x     x
Qu |     x     x   5.7   1.1   1.3   2.0   1.4   0.3   0.1   0.1   0.0
Cr |     x     x     x     x   1.5   2.0   1.2   0.2   0.0   0.1   0.0
Ck |     x     x     x     x   0.5   0.6   0.3   0.1   0.0   0.0     x
Ya |     x     x     x     x     x   1.1   0.7   0.1   0.0     x   0.0
RP |     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.5   0.1     x   0.0   0.0
SL |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0   0.0   0.0
Br |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0   0.0   0.0
Da |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0   0.0
Ha |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

lugnut92,

Did you run those simulations before or after Friday's games? It looks like "after", but I wanted to be sure.

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

After. I didn't have the program made until this morning. Coding to kill time on the train is fun!

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

Two first round series down, two to go!

      KRACH |   1st    QF    SF     F
-------------------------------------
Un |  417.4 |   [B]100[/B]  [B]91.4[/B]  [B]65.8[/B]  [B]43.4[/B]
Qu |  260.5 |   [B]100[/B]  [B]64.7[/B]  [B]37.4[/B]  17.2
Cr |  212.7 |   [B]100[/B]  [B]65.3[/B]  28.5  12.7
Cg |  196.6 |   [B]100[/B]  [B]67.9[/B]  32.3  12.6
Ya |  188.1 |   [B]100[/B]  39.4  15.5   6.9
Ck |  129.2 |  [B]80.2[/B]  25.7   8.4   2.8
SL |  121.5 |   [B]100[/B]  21.9   6.1   2.3
RP |  125.9 |  [B]64.1[/B]  20.5   5.3   2.0
Da |   70.5 |  35.9   2.9   0.6   0.1
Pr |   32.0 |  19.8   0.3   0.0   0.0
Br |   91.0 |     0     0     0     0
Ha |   85.4 |     0     0     0     0

Teams are sorted by likelihood to win the Whitelaw Cup.
[B]Bold[/B] highlights the teams most likely to advance.

Quarterfinals:

   |    Ck    Ya    RP    SL    Da    Pr
----------------------------------------
Un |     x     x     x  51.4  28.8  19.8
Cg |     x     x  51.4  41.6   7.0     x
Qu |     x  80.2  12.7   7.0     x     x
Cr |  80.2  19.8     x     x     x     x

Semifinals:

SFs
   |    Qu    Cr    Ck    Ya    RP    SL    Da    Pr
----------------------------------------------------
Un |     x  26.1   9.5  23.0  17.2  14.4   1.2     x
Cg |  40.4  14.2   5.9   1.6     x   4.4   1.1   0.2
Qu |     x  14.7   5.8   1.9     x   1.4   0.3   0.1
Cr |     x     x     x   7.6   1.5   1.0   0.1   0.0
Ck |     x     x     x   3.6   0.4   0.4   0.1     x
Ya |     x     x     x     x   1.3   0.4   0.0   0.0
RP |     x     x     x     x     x   0.0     x     x
SL |     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0     x

Finals:

   |    Cg    Qu    Cr    Ck    Ya    RP    SL    Da    Pr
----------------------------------------------------------
Un |  19.9  24.5  12.3   3.7   5.1   0.3   0.1     x     x
Cg |     x   1.4   5.0   1.4   4.3   0.3   0.2     x     x
Qu |     x     x   5.6   1.5   0.9   1.6   1.9   0.2   0.0
Cr |     x     x     x     x   2.3   1.4   1.8   0.2   0.0
Ck |     x     x     x     x   0.8   0.5   0.5   0.0     x
Ya |     x     x     x     x     x   0.8   1.2   0.1   0.0
RP |     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.4     x   0.0
SL |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.1   0.0
Da |     x     x     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.0

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

****. ****. ****. ****. ****. That said, the thread must go on.

      KRACH |   1st    QF    SF     F
-------------------------------------
Un |  416.9 |   100  93.6  67.2  44.3
Qu |  261.2 |   100  62.1  36.0  16.5
Cr |  213.0 |   100  67.3  29.4  12.9
Cg |  196.7 |   100  67.4  32.4  12.6
Ya |  188.5 |   100  37.9  14.6   6.7
Ck |  132.0 |   100  32.7  10.8   3.6
SL |  121.5 |   100  32.6   7.8   2.9
Da |   76.5 |   100   6.4   1.8   0.5
RP |  117.6 |     0     0     0     0
Br |   91.4 |     0     0     0     0
Ha |   85.6 |     0     0     0     0
Pr |   31.0 |     0     0     0     0

Quarterfinals:

   |    Ck    Ya    SL    Da
----------------------------
Un |     x     x     x   100
Cg |     x     x   100     x
Qu |     x   100     x     x
Cr |   100     x     x     x

Semifinals:

   |    Qu    Cr    Ck    Ya    SL    Da
----------------------------------------
Un |     x  26.3  12.8  23.9  30.5     x
Cg |  39.1  16.0   7.8     x     x   4.3
Qu |     x  14.6   7.1     x     x   1.3
Cr |     x     x     x   8.9   0.9   0.5
Ck |     x     x     x   4.3   0.4   0.3
Ya |     x     x     x     x   0.8     x

Finals:

   |    Cg    Qu    Cr    Ck    Ya    SL    Da
----------------------------------------------
Un |  20.2  24.1  13.4   5.0   4.6     x     x
Cg |     x   1.1   4.8   1.7   4.5     x     x
Qu |     x     x   5.5   1.9     x   2.9   0.4
Cr |     x     x     x     x   2.8   2.4   0.5
Ck |     x     x     x     x   1.1   0.9   0.2
Ya |     x     x     x     x     x   1.3   0.4
SL |     x     x     x     x     x     x   0.2

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

Sorry I missed the post after Friday's games, here we are now:

      KRACH |   1st    QF    SF     F
-------------------------------------
Un |  430.5 |   100   100  71.2  44.9
Qu |  286.5 |   100   100  57.5  26.6
Cg |  211.6 |   100   100  42.5  16.7
Cr |  202.4 |   100  60.1  19.2   8.6
Ck |  134.5 |   100  39.9   9.5   3.3
Ya |  166.8 |   100     0     0     0
SL |  109.6 |   100     0     0     0
Da |   72.5 |   100     0     0     0
RP |  116.4 |     0     0     0     0
Br |   89.6 |     0     0     0     0
Ha |   83.0 |     0     0     0     0
Pr |   30.5 |     0     0     0     0

Semis:

   |    Qu    Cr    Ck
----------------------
Un |     x  60.1  39.9
Cg |   100     x     x

Finals:

   |    Cg    Qu    Cr    Ck
----------------------------
Un |  30.3  40.9     x     x
Cg |     x     x   8.2   4.1
Qu |     x     x  11.0   5.5

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

Going into Lake Placid, it's quite a bit easier to predict. I could do it without my program but whatever. Here's a million simulations of something that can only happen 8 different ways!

      KRACH |   1st    QF    SF     F
-------------------------------------
Un |  432.7 |   100   100  66.9  42.3
Qu |  287.1 |   100   100  57.6  26.2
Cg |  211.5 |   100   100  42.4  16.3
Cr |  214.0 |   100   100  33.1  15.2
Ck |  134.5 |   100     0     0     0
Ya |  166.8 |   100     0     0     0
SL |  109.6 |   100     0     0     0
Da |   72.5 |   100     0     0     0
RP |  116.4 |     0     0     0     0
Br |   89.6 |     0     0     0     0
Ha |   83.0 |     0     0     0     0
Pr |   30.5 |     0     0     0     0

Semis:

   |    Qu    Cr
----------------
Un |     x   100
Cg |   100     x

Finals:

   |    Cg    Qu    Cr
----------------------
Un |  28.4  38.5     x
Cg |           x  14.0
Qu |     x        19.1

 

[lugnut92]

Re: ECAC Projected Standings 2013-2014

Not much left, this is just one division problem, but whatever:

      KRACH |   1st    QF    SF     F
-------------------------------------
Un |  455.3 |   100   100   100  66.9
Cg |  224.7 |   100   100   100  33.1
Qu |  266.5 |   100   100     0     0
Cr |  204.3 |   100   100     0     0
Ck |  129.6 |   100     0     0     0
Ya |  165.3 |   100     0     0     0
SL |  108.7 |   100     0     0     0
Da |   72.1 |   100     0     0     0
RP |  116.2 |     0     0     0     0
Br |   89.1 |     0     0     0     0
Ha |   82.3 |     0     0     0     0
Pr |   30.3 |     0     0     0     0

Finals:

   |    Cg
----------
Un |   100