IRC National Rankings: 1/20/08

Thursday, January 24, 2008

IRC National Rankings Return

On December 7th, the IRC released the Mid-Season All-American Team. What happened in the immediate aftermath almost brought and end to the weekly national rankings. Three of the voting members of the IRC resigned at the conclusion of the semester, two for personal reasons, and another who was disappointed with adding new voting members to the original IRC. After a lengthy search and countless emails, the IRC has finally appointed three new members and now launches the first new rankings of the year.

The IRC would like to ask anyone who has current game pictures to please email them to IndRankCom@gmail.com so that we may feature them on the site. Additionally, if anyone has any questions, comments, concerns or idea's they would like to present to the IRC, please use the same address and your email's will be answered accordingly.

Thank You for sticking with the IRC and we hope to continue to produce quality rankings every week for the remainder of the season.

IRC

Week 11: DI National Rankings

#1 – Lindenwood University (10-0-0)
Last Week: 1

#2 - SUNY Stony Brook (14-0-0)
Last Week: 2

#3 - Michigan State University (14-1-0)
Last Week: 3

#4 - University of Missouri-St. Louis (9-2-0)
Last Week: 4

#5 – SUNY Buffalo (12-1-0)
Last Week: 5

#6 - University of California, Irvine (11-0-1)
Last Week: 6

#7 - Long Beach State (9-1-1)
Last Week: 9

#8 – University of Florida (8-2-2)
Last Week: 7

#9 - University of Michigan (9-3-0)
Last Week: 8

#10 –Colorado State University (11-1-1)
Last Week: 10

#11 - The Ohio State University (11-2-0)
Last Week: 11

#12 - University of North Texas (11-1-1)
Last Week: 12

#13 - California Polytechnic State University, SLO (7-2-2)
Last Week: 13

#14 - University of Rhode Island (9-3-1)
Last Week: 14

#15 - Rutgers University (12-4-0)
Last Week: 15

Week 11: DII National Rankings

#1 – Neumann College (14-0-0)
Last Week: 1

#2 – Truman State University (10-0-2)
Last Week: 2

#3 - Missouri State University (7-0-2)
Last Week: 6

#4 – West Chester University (11-2-0)
Last Week: 3

#5 - University of California, San Diego (10-1-0)
Last Week: 4

#6 – Cal Poly Pomona (9-1-2)
Last Week: 5

#7 – California State University, San Bernardino (9-1-1)
Last Week: 8

#8 – Elon University (6-2-0)
Last Week: 9

#9 - University of Louisiana at Lafayette (13-0-0)
Last Week: 11

#10 – Grand Valley State (11-3-2)
Last Week: 10

#11 – Albany (9-3-1)
Last Week: 12

#12 – Shippensburg University (9-5-0)
Last Week: 14

#13 – Sam Houston State University (8-2-0)
Last Week: 15

#14 - Western Carolina University (5-2-1)
Last Week: NR

#15 - Slippery Rock University (7-5-0)
Last Week: NR

Week 11: DIII National Rankings

#1 – Broward Community College (9-1-2)
Last Week: 2

#2 – St. Charles Community College (8-4-0)
Last Week: 1

#3 – Arapahoe County Community College (10-3-0)
Last Week: 3

#4 – Oakland Community College (5-3-2)
Last Week: 5

#5 - Nassau County Community College (7-4-2)
Last Week: NR

Week 11: B National Rankings

#1 – Lindenwood University – Gold (10-0-0)
Last Week: 1

#2 - State University of New York at Buffalo (11-0-2)
Last Week: 3

#3 – Michigan State University (9-1-1)
Last Week: 4

#4 – University of Michigan (9-0-1)
Last Week: 5

#5 - North Texas University (10-0-1)
Last Week: 6

#6 – University of Central Florida (9-2-1)
Last Week: 2

#7- Colorado State University (10-2-1)
Last Week: 7

#8 - Eastern Michigan (5-1-0)
Last Week: 8

#9 –Penn State University (9-1-2)
Last Week: 9

#10 - Lindenwood University Black (7-2-2)
Last Week: 10

#11 - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Gold (7-1-0)
Last Week: 11

#12 –UC Santa Barbara Gold (5-1-2)
Last Week: 12

#13 – Central Michigan University (4-0-0)
Last Week: 14

#14 - University of Missouri - Columbia (7-2-1)
Last Week: 15

#15 - University of Missouri - St. Louis (9-3-0)
Last Week: NR

The Rankings Explained

Since the conclusion of the season both founders set out to find the best solution to answer the age old question, “Who’s #1?” After much search, the answer was to use a mathematical formula to calculate the answer. Removing the human element from the voting would likely result in less biased rankings towards individual teams and regions.

The solution would be found in the ELO chess rating system. They system was created to rank chess players by another means that wins, losses and draws. The system uses a mathematical formula to reward each person for impressive feats and punish them for lesser impressive feats. Because chess and inline hockey are two different animals, the general equation had to be changed to allow for more hockeys related factors into the equation.

Using the FIFA Women’s World Rankings as a guideline (Elo Based), we managed to change the rankings to suit the nature of our sport. The rankings include the importance of the game, the outcome of the game, the expected result of the game, and the goal differential of the game when calculating a result. To better explain the way the rankings work I give you the following examples (all team start with a ranking of 1500):

Lindenwood University (1500) vs. UMSL (1500): If Lindenwood won the regular season game 4-3; they would be awarded 15 points for the victory and UMSL would be docked 15 points. However, if the game was won 12-2, Lindenwood would earn 39.38 points for the victory and UMSL would be docked 39.38 points. Additionally, the importance of the game could change, using the national title game as the example, with both teams having equal ratings Lindenwood would be awarded 52.5 points for a 6-3 win.

However, as you could assume, two teams having the same rating would be rare. Each teams point total carries over from one week to the next and from one season to the next. The following is a example of two teams with different point values and the different results it can produce.

Lindenwood University (1746.38) vs. Illinois State (1360.88): There are a few things that you can determine because of the vast difference in each teams rating (385.5). The first is that Lindenwood is expected to win the game. The second is that Illinois State winning the game would be a much bigger accomplishment that Lindenwood winning the game. The maximum points Lindenwood can earn from this game is 7.72, which would mean they won by at least 10 goals. However, on the flip side, if Illinois State was to win the game by at least 10 goals they could earn as many as 71.03 points. This is based on the projection that Lindenwood would win the match-up 90% of the time.

As the two examples show, there are a bunch of positives when using this system. For starters, once a team has achieved a high rating, it becomes difficult for them to increase it without playing a higher level of competition. This rewards regions that have more competitive teams. It also rewards teams who travel out of the region and win games against other higher rated teams. For example, last season, Towson and Army both played James Madison who would have had a higher rating that both visiting teams. In the games, Army and Towson both won handily and would have increased their ratings while negatively hurting James Madison. But, the hidden bonus is they now can bring those rating points back into their region. Those points then become spread out over the entire region as the season progresses and teams win and lose.

For the ratings system to work, each game has to have a certain amount of value attached to it. In the system we will be using five different levels to rate the importance of any give game. The first level is the lowest level of importance; it contains all pre-season exhibition games. The second level includes all regular-season regional games, as well as cross-divisional exhibition games. Level three includes all cross-regional games and invitational based tournaments, like WinterFest. The fourth level includes all regional playoff games and the fifth and final level includes all national playoff games.