Never Apologize, Never Explain 2025-26

This page describes the methodology for this year's TBRW? Predictions.  As always, if you catch an error please contact me.

RS

RS is each team's points (real points, not derp points) in the prior ECAC regular season:

	RS
Brown	20
Clarkson	31
Colgate	28
Cornell	24
Dartmouth	25
Harvard	21
Princeton	17
Quinnipiac	33
RPI	14
SLU	12
Union	26
Yale	13

PS

PS is the number of upset (lower seed) advances (+1) or eliminations (-1) in the previous season's ECAC tournament.  The consolation game is ignored.

The upsets in the last season's ECAC tournament were:

• QF #6 Cornell upset #3 Colgate
• QF #5 Dartmouth upset #4 Union
• SF #6 Cornell upset #1 Quinnipiac
• F #6 Cornell upset #2 Clarkson

	PS
Brown	0
Clarkson	-1
Colgate	-1
Cornell	+3
Dartmouth	+1
Harvard	0
Princeton	0
Quinnipiac	-1
RPI	0
SLU	0
Union	-1
Yale	0

Imp

Imp is 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, divided by 2, rounded down.  A positive Imp indicates the team had a better second half:

	Pts	2nd ½	1st ½	Diff	Imp
Brown	20	12	7	6	+3
Clarkson	31	15	16	-1	0
Colgate	28	13	15	-3	-1
Cornell	24	12	12	0	0
Dartmouth	25	10	15	-5	-2
Harvard	21	9	12	-3	-1
Princeton	17	9	8	1	0
Quinnipiac	33	18	15	3	+1
RPI	14	6	8	-2	-1
SLU	12	7	5	2	+1
Union	26	14	12	2	+1
Yale	13	6	7	-1	0

RA: Returning Awardees

Returning Awardees is the net return (or loss) of ECAC First Team, POTY, and ROTY awards.  The potential repetition of a player (e.g., First Team and POTY) is intentional to allow for the impact of unusually talented players.

The prior ECAC awardees were:

Award	Name	Team	Status
ECAC F	Ayrton Martino	Clarkson	Pro
ECAC F	Ellis Rickwood	Clarkson	North Dakota
ECAC F	Brett Chorske	Colgate	Pro
ECAC D	Trey Taylor	Clarkson	Pro
ECAC D	CJ Foley	Dartmouth	Return
ECAC G	Ethan Langenegger	Clarkson	Pro
POTY	Ayrton Martino	Clarkson	Pro
DF	Jack Ricketts	Quinnipiac	Return
DD	Trey Taylor	Clarkson	Pro
ROTY	Michael Neumeier	Colgate	Return

The calculation: add one point for each returning awardee while subtracting one for each departure:

	Return	Depart	RA
Brown	0	0	0
Clarkson	0	6	-6
Colgate	1	1	0
Cornell	0	0	0
Dartmouth	1	0	+1
Harvard	0	0	0
Princeton	0	0	0
Quinnipiac	1	0	+1
RPI	0	0	0
SLU	0	0	0
Union	0	0	0
Yale	0	0	0

Avg10

Avg10 measures traditional program strength, by taking the team's mean number of Points over the prior 10 seasons.

	Brn	Clk	Cgt	Cor	Drt	Hvd	Prn	Qpc	RPI	SLU	Uni	Yal
2015	13	19	26	22	26	25	6	35	18	29	17	28
2016	12	23	14	22	22	28	9	37	23	25	18	31
2017	7	23	15	31	16	34	19	27	12	28	34	18
2018	15	29	23	36	23	25	22	20	10	7	33	21
2019	21	28	17	30	23	28	18	30	16	8	22	23
2020	18	33	21	38	22	27	8	30	27	6	12	22
2022	16	32	22	28	12	30	15	35	20	19	20	15
2023	13	21	25	31	9	36	16	40	18	24	17	16
2024	14	25	28	28	25	18	19	35	15	20	21	16
2025	20	31	28	24	25	21	17	33	14	12	26	13
Pts	149	264	219	290	203	272	149	322	173	178	220	203
Avg10	14.9	26.4	21.9	29.0	20.3	27.2	14.9	32.2	17.3	17.8	22.0	20.3

Summary:

	Avg10
Brown	14.9
Clarkson	26.4
Colgate	21.9
Cornell	29.0
Dartmouth	20.3
Harvard	27.2
Princeton	14.9
Quinnipiac	32.2
RPI	17.3
SLU	17.8
Union	22.0
Yale	20.3

Putting it All Together

Now we put everything together to predict the final standings, by taking half from Recency and half from Tradition.

Recency

Recency, the team's recent strength, is the sum of RS, PS, Imp, RA, all divided by 2.

Tradition

Tradition, the team's traditional strength, equals Avg10 / 2.

Conclusion

All that's left to do is add Recency and Tradition together. Add Fudge = (22 - mean of Net)/12, to get a normalized RS strength (Nieu). This just means the average number of points expected is shaped to 22. This year, Fudge = .34

Finally, rank order Nieu to get the ECAC standing (Pred). Ties are resolved by the prior year's RS.