So, here's how we do it. Follow the links for detailed computations.
Regular season performance in previous season. |
|
Post-season performance in previous season. |
Factored into these base values is a function of the following modifiers:
Standing in total conference record in the three previous seasons. |
|
Second-half improvement, previous regular season. |
|
Returning % of Leading Forwards points. |
|
Returning % of Leading Defensemen points. |
|
Returning % of Goaltender wins. |
Pred is derived by adding all of the base values and modifiers together:
FPred, the basis for our final predictor, is derived by regressing Pred 25% back towards the team's aggregate conference standing over the previous ten seasons:Pred = (RS + PS) + (Prv3 + 1/2 + RetF + RetD + RetG)
FPred = 3 * Pred + Prv10
Sum of all base values and modifiers. |
|
Standing in total conference record in the ten previous seasons. |
|
Final predictor and basis for the TBRW? Prediction. |
Our final prediction, TBRW, is the rank order of FPred.
Predicted ranking. |
The modifiers are computed for the present year, below.
RS is a reversal (returning the largest number for first place) of the previous season's ECAC regular season standings. RS = (12 - Standing).
This year, Quinnipiac, which replaces Vermont as an ECAC member, presents a challenge. To resolve it, we reviewed their relative position within KRACH, considered by �bergeeks dear to the editors' hearts as the finest cross-conference comparative metric for college hockey. Prior to the NCAA tournament, the Bobcats ranked behind the eleven returning teams. Therefore, we give them a stand-in RS of 12 for this edition of the Predictions. The ECAC teams that finished below UVM's 7th position are moved up accordingly.
|
|
Standing | RS |
|
Brown |
5 | 7 |
| Clarkson | 8 | 4 |
| Colgate | 3 | 9 |
| Cornell | 1 | 11 |
| Dartmouth | 4 | 8 |
| Harvard | 2 | 10 |
| Princeton | 9 | 3 |
| Quinnipiac | 12 | 0 |
| RPI | 10 | 2 |
| St. Lawrence | 6 | 6 |
| Union | 7 | 5 |
| Yale | 11 | 1 |
The number of post-season upset series wins (+1) and losses (-1) in the previous season's ECAC playoffs. The consolation game is ignored.
There as only one 2004-05 playoff series in which the better seed did not advance:
Quinnipiac is given a neutral mark by convention.
|
|
PS |
|
Brown |
0 |
| Clarkson | +1 |
| Colgate | 0 |
| Cornell | 0 |
| Dartmouth | 0 |
| Harvard | 0 |
| Princeton | 0 |
| Quinnipiac | 0 |
| RPI | 0 |
| St. Lawrence | 0 |
| Union | -1 |
| Yale | 0 |
The third (+1 top 33%, 0 middle 33%, -1 bottom 33%) in conference winning percentage (Pct) for the previous three years, i.e., those seasons in which the current returning classes have played. Quinnipiac is given a neutral mark by convention.
|
|
Pct | Rank | Prv3 |
|
Brown |
.545 | 5 | 0 |
| Clarkson | .417 | 8 | 0 |
| Colgate | .621 | 3 | +1 |
| Cornell | .803 | 1 | +1 |
| Dartmouth | .614 | 4 | +1 |
| Harvard | .674 | 2 | +1 |
| Princeton | .242 | 12 | -1 |
| Quinnipiac | --- | --- | 0 |
| RPI | .386 | 11 | -1 |
| St. Lawrence | .402 | 9 | -1 |
| Union | .439 | 7 | 0 |
| Yale | .402 | 9 | -1 |
The third (+1 top 33%, 0 middle 33%, -1 bottom 33%) in improvement in points gained in the second half (games 12-22) over the first half (games 1-11) of the previous ECAC regular season. Quinnipiac is given a neutral mark by convention.
|
|
Pts Total | Pts 12-22 | Pts 1-11 | Pts Diff | 1/2 |
|
Brown |
20 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Clarkson | 16 | 9 | 7 | +2 | 0 |
| Colgate | 31 | 11 | 20 | -11 | -1 |
| Cornell | 38 | 21 | 17 | +4 | +1 |
| Dartmouth | 28 | 16 | 12 | +4 | +1 |
| Harvard | 32 | 19 | 13 | +6 | +1 |
| Princeton | 14 | 6 | 8 | -2 | -1 |
| Quinnipiac | --- | --- | --- | --- | 0 |
| RPI | 13 | 8 | 5 | +3 | +1 |
| St. Lawrence | 19 | 7 | 12 | -5 | -1 |
| Union | 17 | 3 | 14 | -11 | -1 |
| Yale | 7 | 5 | 2 | +3 | +1 |
The third (+1 top 33%, 0 middle 33%, -1 bottom 33%) in returning % of Leading Forwards points. Team-by-team breakdown here.
|
|
RetF% | RetF |
|
Brown |
63 | 0 |
| Clarkson | 56 | -1 |
| Colgate | 59 | 0 |
| Cornell | 65 | 0 |
| Dartmouth | 77 | +1 |
| Harvard | 56 | -1 |
| Princeton | 65 | 0 |
| Quinnipiac | 54 | -1 |
| RPI | 58 | -1 |
| St. Lawrence | 66 | +1 |
| Union | 70 | +1 |
| Yale | 100 | +1 |
The third (+1 top 33%, 0 middle 33%, -1 bottom 33%) in returning % of Leading Defensemen points. Team-by-team breakdown here. (Union wins the tiebreaker with Quinnipiac, 88.9 - 88.5).
|
|
RetD% | RetD |
|
Brown |
76 | 0 |
| Clarkson | 89 | +1 |
| Colgate | 50 | -1 |
| Cornell | 57 | -1 |
| Dartmouth | 100 | +1 |
| Harvard | 47 | -1 |
| Princeton | 43 | -1 |
| Quinnipiac | 89 | 0 |
| RPI | 80 | 0 |
| St. Lawrence | 61 | 0 |
| Union | 89 | +1 |
| Yale | 100 | +1 |
The third (+1 top 33%, 0 middle 33%, -1 bottom 33%) in returning % of Leading Goaltenders wins. Team-by-team breakdown here.
|
|
RetG% | RetG |
|
Brown |
94 | 0 |
| Clarkson | 31 | 0 |
| Colgate | 4 | -1 |
| Cornell | 100 | +1 |
| Dartmouth | 30 | 0 |
| Harvard | 10 | -1 |
| Princeton | 100 | +1 |
| Quinnipiac | 5 | -1 |
| RPI | 36 | 0 |
| St. Lawrence | 12 | -1 |
| Union | 100 | +1 |
| Yale | 100 | +1 |
Pred = (RS + PS) + (Prv3 + 1/2 + RetF + RetD + RetG)
|
|
RS | PS | Prv3 | 1/2 | RetF | RetD | RetG | Pred |
|
Brown |
7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Clarkson | 4 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 0 | 5 |
| Colgate | 9 | 0 | +1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 7 |
| Cornell | 11 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 13 |
| Dartmouth | 8 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | 12 |
| Harvard | 10 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 9 |
| Princeton | 3 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | +1 | 1 |
| Quinnipiac | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -2 |
| RPI | 2 | 0 | -1 | +1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| St. Lawrence | 6 | 0 | -1 | -1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | 4 |
| Union | 5 | -1 | 0 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 6 |
| Yale | 1 | 0 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 4 |
Prv10 is a reversal (returning the largest number for first place) of the regular season Standing of the previous ten seasons, 1994-95 through 2003-04. Prv10 = (12 - Standing). As a compromise, we award Quinnipiac Vermont's position (7th), because they have already been given a tacit last place finish in the RS, and median score in Prv3.
|
|
Pct | Standing | Prv10 |
|
Brown |
.404 | 11 | 1 |
| Clarkson | .626 | 2 | 10 |
| Colgate | .576 | 3 | 9 |
| Cornell | .665 | 1 | 11 |
| Dartmouth | .466 | 8 | 4 |
| Harvard | .539 | 4 | 8 |
| Princeton | .413 | 10 | 2 |
| Quinnipiac | --- | 7 | 5 |
| RPI | .498 | 6 | 6 |
| St. Lawrence | .537 | 5 | 7 |
| Union | .363 | 12 | 0 |
| Yale | .443 | 9 | 3 |
The standings prediction, TBRW, is the rank order of FPred.
|
|
Pred | 3*Pred | Prv10 | FPred | TBRW |
|
Brown |
7 | 21 | 1 | 22 | 6 |
| Clarkson | 5 | 15 | 10 | 25 | 5 |
| Colgate | 7 | 21 | 9 | 30 | 4 |
| Cornell | 13 | 39 | 11 | 50 | 1 |
| Dartmouth | 12 | 36 | 4 | 40 | 2 |
| Harvard | 9 | 27 | 8 | 35 | 3 |
| Princeton | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 11 |
| Quinnipiac | -2 | -6 | 5 | -1 | 12 |
| RPI | 1 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 10 |
| St. Lawrence | 4 | 12 | 7 | 19 | 7 |
| Union | 6 | 18 | 0 | 18 | 8 |
| Yale | 4 | 12 | 3 | 15 | 9 |