Happy
Registered User
Re: The Greatest Programs of All-Time: #1 - #58
Sean,
Thanks for posting the above info. Can you imagine the battles over which teams would be A, B, and C today? A huge amount of work had to be done to get those rankings.
From Spalding’s Official Ice Hockey Guide for 1929-30
<I><B>National Rankings of Collegiate Teams, 1928-29</B>
By Theodore Mills Tonnele (Princeton)
As the result of a number of years’ study of the ranking of college athletic teams, the writer has concluded that a pragmatic formula may be devised for any sport, which upon application to any group of teams, will result in a surprisingly sound ranking of them.
A formula worked out for, and applied to, the collegiate hockey teams throughout the country, gives the following ranking this past season:
<B>A TEAMS</B>
Ranking Order – Team – Index No.
1. Eveleth Junior College (19.00)
2. Yale (16.60)
3. Minnesota (16.08)
4. Clarkson (14.00)
5. Dartmouth (11.44)
6. Harvard (10.38)
7. Marquette (9.55)
8. Princeton (9.50)
9. Wisconsin (6.33)
10. Michigan (4.36)
The index number of each team gives the ranking position of the team as to all other teams. It does not indicate the degree of superiority of any team over any other team. Thus, an index number of 6 shows that the team is stronger than any having a smaller index number, but it does not in any way indicate that a the team is twice as strong as one with an index number of 3. Moreover, in view of the vagaries of competitive sport, the index number manifestly does not show that a team is bound to defeat one having a lower index number, or even that it has defeated all teams of lower index numbers which it met during the course of the past season.
The index number is the result of applying a general formula for measuring the strength of a team, to the record of the particular team during the season.
The determination of the formula involves three steps – a broad classification of the teams, a measurement of the relative performance of each team against others teams, and a proper weighting of the differences in performance.
A study of the records of the forty-seven teams to be ranked, shows that they fall naturally into three well-defined groups, one of which may be divided into two sub-groups. These groups may be described as (A), the extremely good teams; (B), the ordinarily good teams, including (B1), the better of the B teams, and (B2), the merely fairly good teams; and (C), all the other teams.
A distinctive feature of each class for the past season, is that no C team defeated an A or B team, and no B team defeated an A team.
Having made this general classification, it becomes necessary, in order to rank the teams within each class, to measure the relative performance of the teams in the class as against the same opponents or against different opponents of equal caliber. A scale of five divisions, representing the varying degrees of victory or loss, proves itself sufficiently accurate in measurement to differentiate in the performance of teams in games within their own class, and avoids undue refinement so that the divisions are sufficiently distinct for the division within which the performance of a team falls to immediately apparent. These five divisions of performance are (1) decisively winning, (2) barely winning, (3) tieing, (4) barely losing, and (5) decisively losing (abbreviated “dw”, “bw”, “t”, “bl”, “dl”, respectively). It appears that in hockey, a difference of two goals constitutes a decisive victory for the winner, and correspondingly, a decisive loss for the loser.
In dealing with the performance of teams in games with teams of a different class, no debit is given for losing to a team of a higher class, nor any credit for defeating a team of a lower class, except in certain cases of a B team decisively defeating a C team. The same credit is given for defeating a team of a higher class, as a team in that class would receive, and the same debit, for losing to a team of lower class, as a team in the lower class would receive.
It remains only to give the proper relative weight to these varying degrees of performance. This is done by giving a number of points credit or debit, properly graduated to the divisions of the measuring scale. The following are found empirically to be substantially correct figures for the purpose, and their determination results in the completed formula
A credit of 1 is given to a B team for decisively winning from a C team if the ranking of the B team is helped by doing so.Code:dw. +19 dw. +4 dw. + 3½ bw. +18 bw. +3 bw. + 2½ t. an A team +14 t. a B1 team +2 t. a B2 team + 1½ bl. + 5 bl. -2½ bl. -3 dl. 0 dl. -3½ dl. -4
In view of the variation in the play of many club teams during a season, and in almost from one game to another, and in the difficulty of classifying club teams, games with club teams are ignored. On the other hand, practically all Canadian college teams are Class A teams, and games with them are rated accordingly.
A team’s performance in each of its games with other college teams is rated in accordance with the foregoing table; the points are totaled and the sum is divided by number of games so rated. This yields a quotient which is the index number of the team’s comparative ranking. For illustration, Williams’ record, works out as follows:
dw. Amherst, B2 team +3½
dw. Amherst, B2 team +3½
bl. Amherst, B2 team -3
dw. West Point, C team – (no advantage to include)
bw. Amherst, B2 team +2½
bw. Amherst, B2 team 2 ½
bw. Mass. Agri., B2 team, +2½
bl. Cornell, B1 team -2½
dw. Pennsylvania, C team – (no advantage to include)
dl. Princeton, A team – (not included)
bl. Middlebury, B1 team -2½
bl. Princeton, A team +5
dw. Union, B2 team +3½
Net total +15
Divided by number of games 10
Index number of rating +1.5</I>
Here is Eveleth Junior College’s record taken from the Guide:
dw. Hibbing Junior Coll., C team – (not included)
dw. Marquette Univ., A team +19
dw. Marquette Univ. A team, +19
dw. Duluth Central H.S. – (not included)
dw. Hibbing Junior Coll., C team – (not included)
t. Virginia City Team, club – (not included)
dw. Duluth Junior Coll., C team – (not included)
dw. Fort Frances Leafs (Ontario), club – (not included)
dw. Michigan Tech, B team – (not included)
dw. Duluth Central H.S. – (not included)
dw. Hibbing Junior Coll., C team – (not included)
dw. Michigan Tech, B team – (not included)
dw. Univ. of Wisconsin, A team +19
bw. St. Mary’s College (Minn), B team – (not included)
dw. Virginia City Team, club – (not included)
dw. Michigan Tech, B team – (not included)
dw. Duluth Junior Coll., C team – (not included)
bw. Eveleth H.S. – (not included)
dw. Fort Frances Leafs (Ontario), club – (not included)
Net total +57
Divided by number of games 3
Index number of rating +19
The second place team in this ranking, Yale, played 10 A teams, 3 dw, 5 bw, 1 t and 1 bl. Who do you think was actually the better team in 1928-29?
Sean
Sean,
Thanks for posting the above info. Can you imagine the battles over which teams would be A, B, and C today? A huge amount of work had to be done to get those rankings.
