So, here's how we do it. Follow the links for the detailed computations.
Lots of changes this time. Although TBRW beat the ECAC Coaches Poll for the third time in four years, it was a weak year.
All the stats which used to be expressed in rough thirds (+1, 0, -1) have been changed to avoid being swamped by the other metrics.
RS is no longer the team's place in the standings. It is based on the prior season's winning percentage.
PS is now multiplied by 2 (for number of "points" advanced).
1/2 is renamed Improve, as it confused everybody to have a fraction as a metric name.
Prv3 is gone. It existed to help flatten out the exaggerations caused by the standings metric, which no longer operate.
RetF and RetD are gone, replaced by Off, the returning percentage of points of high performance players, defined below.
RetG is gone, replaced by Goal, the returning percentage of goalie wins.
Recruit is a brand new metric, described below.
Ned replaces both Pred and FPred, as described below.
FPred is no longer necessary since Ned includes recruiting strength. The whole idea of factoring a regression to the traditional standing of a team was to capture its "reload" capability. Now that a targeted recruiting metric is available, this is no longer necessary.
TBRW is now the rank order of Ned rather than the defunct FPred.
Regular season points |
|
Post-season performance |
|
Second-half improvement |
|
Returning % of high performance players |
|
Returning % of goaltender wins |
|
BRP grade of incoming recruiting class |
Ned (the contraction of "New Predictor") is derived by adding all of these values together:
Ned = RS + PS + Improve + Off + Goal + Recruit
TBRW, the prediction of standing, is the rank-order of Ned, with ties broken as discussed below.
RS = Prior regular season's points, or percentage multiplied by 22 if not all teams played 22 games (a.k.a., the Pachyderm Contingency).
|
|
Pct | RS |
|
Brown |
.364 | 16 |
| Clarkson | .682 | 30 |
| Colgate | .386 | 17 |
| Cornell | .545 | 24 |
| Dartmouth | .614 | 27 |
| Harvard | .500 | 22 |
| Princeton | .500 | 22 |
| Quinnipiac | .545 | 24 |
| RPI | .386 | 17 |
| St. Lawrence | .750 | 33 |
| Union | .341 | 15 |
| Yale | .386 | 17 |
The number of post-season upset series wins (+1) and losses (-1) in the previous season's ECAC playoffs, multipled by 2. The consolation game is ignored.
|
|
PS |
|
Brown |
0 |
| Clarkson | 0 |
| Colgate | 0 |
| Cornell | -2 |
| Dartmouth | 0 |
| Harvard | 0 |
| Princeton | 0 |
| Quinnipiac | 4 |
| RPI | 0 |
| St. Lawrence | -2 |
| Union | 0 |
| Yale | 0 |
One third (rounded to a whole) of the difference in points gained in the second half (games 12-22) minus the first half (games 1-11) of the prior ECAC regular season.
|
|
Pts Total | Pts 12-22 | Pts 1-11 | Diff | Improve |
|
Brown |
16 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Clarkson | 30 | 16 | 14 | 2 | 1 |
| Colgate | 17 | 8 | 9 | -1 | 0 |
| Cornell | 24 | 11 | 13 | -2 | -1 |
| Dartmouth | 27 | 17 | 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Harvard | 22 | 14 | 8 | 6 | 2 |
| Princeton | 22 | 13 | 9 | 4 | 1 |
| Quinnipiac | 24 | 9 | 15 | -6 | -2 |
| RPI | 17 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 1 |
| St. Lawrence | 33 | 16 | 17 | -1 | 0 |
| Union | 15 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Yale | 17 | 6 | 11 | -5 | -2 |
Returning % of points of "high performance players," multiplied by 10 and rounded to nearest whole number.
What is a "high performance player," you ask? A player who scored at least half as many points as the team leader in the preceding season. For example, Topher Scott led the 2007 Big Red with 25. Cornell's high performance players are therefore anyone above the Cut, 25/2, thus 13 or more points.
Scott 25, Sawada 21, Greening 19, Gallagher 18, Krantz 15, Seminoff 15, Nash 14 = 127 points are returning (Ret).
Bitz 24, McCutcheon 20, Romano 19, Carefoot 17 = 80 points are not (Not).
Therefore, Cornell's Off% is 127/(127+80) = .614, and their Off is 6.
All prior seniors are assumed to be not returning. In addition, the non-senior, non-returning players from last year's ECAC rosters are the following (* high performing players):
|
|
Cut | Ret | Not | Off% | Off |
|
Brown |
17 | 116 | 18 | .866 | 9 |
| Clarkson | 20 | 194 | 40 | .829 | 8 |
| Colgate | 20 | 121 | 59 | .672 | 7 |
| Cornell | 13 | 127 | 80 | .614 | 6 |
| Dartmouth | 22 | 54 | 148 | .267 | 3 |
| Harvard | 13 | 131 | 66 | .665 | 7 |
| Princeton | 15 | 75 | 78 | .490 | 5 |
| Quinnipiac | 22 | 172 | 41 | .808 | 8 |
| RPI | 14 | 113 | 97 | .538 | 5 |
| St. Lawrence | 17 | 99 | 89 | .527 | 5 |
| Union | 19 | 132 | 58 | .695 | 7 |
| Yale | 16 | 72 | 18 | .800 | 8 |
Returning % of goaltender minutes multiplied by 4 and rounded to nearest whole number. The relative de-emphasis is because teams will often return all or no goaltending, and a ten point swing would weigh far too much in the final rankings.
The non-senior non-returning goaltenders from last year's ECAC rosters are:
|
|
Ret | Not | W% | Goal |
|
Brown |
11 | 0 | 1.000 | 4 |
| Clarkson | 24 | 1 | .960 | 4 |
| Colgate | 15 | 0 | 1.000 | 4 |
| Cornell | 14 | 0 | 1.000 | 4 |
| Dartmouth | 18 | 0 | 1.000 | 4 |
| Harvard | 7 | 7 | .500 | 2 |
| Princeton | 8 | 7 | .533 | 2 |
| Quinnipiac | 21 | 0 | 1.000 | 4 |
| RPI | 10 | 0 | 1.000 | 4 |
| St. Lawrence | 23 | 0 | 1.000 | 4 |
| Union | 14 | 0 | 1.000 | 4 |
| Yale | 9 | 2 | .818 | 3 |
Based on the grade assigned by the Big Red Puckhead blog, for ECAC recruiting, (A = 4, B = 3, etc).
Team-by-team breakdown and details are here.
|
|
BRPH | Recruit |
|
Brown |
D- | 1 |
| Clarkson | B | 3 |
| Colgate | A | 4 |
| Cornell | A | 4 |
| Dartmouth | A | 4 |
| Harvard | A+ | 4 |
| Princeton | B | 3 |
| Quinnipiac | C | 2 |
| RPI | B | 3 |
| St. Lawrence | D- | 1 |
| Union | C | 2 |
| Yale | C- | 2 |
Ned = RS + PS + Improve + Off + Goal + Recruit
TBRW
TBRW is the rank-order of Ned. Ties in Ned are broken as follows:
If a tie still remains, then a tie is recorded.
|
|
RS | PS | Improve | Off | Goal | Recruit | Ned | TBRW |
| Brown |
16 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 30 | 10 |
| Clarkson | 30 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 47 | 1 |
| Colgate | 17 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 32 | 8 |
| Cornell | 24 | -2 | -1 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 35 | 6 |
| Dartmouth | 27 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 40 | 3 |
| Harvard | 22 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 37 | 5 |
| Princeton | 22 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 33 | 7 |
| Quinnipiac | 24 | 4 | -2 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 40 | 4 |
| RPI | 17 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 30 | 9 |
| St. Lawrence | 33 | -2 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 41 | 2 |
| Union | 15 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 29 | 11 |
| Yale | 17 | 0 | -2 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 28 | 12 |