NU Prof's Computer Rankings for Feb. 1

[NUProf]

Enjoy

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

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

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

 

[jazman]

Re: NU Prof's Computer Rankings for Feb. 1

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

 

[93GreatLaker]

Re: NU Prof's Computer Rankings for Feb. 1

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

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

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Re: NU Prof's Computer Rankings for Feb. 1

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

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

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

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

 

[NUProf]

Re: NU Prof's Computer Rankings for Feb. 1

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

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

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Re: NU Prof's Computer Rankings for Feb. 1

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

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

 

[NUProf]

Re: NU Prof's Computer Rankings for Feb. 1

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

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