NCAA Tournament Preview: UND vs. Yale

North Dakota’s seniors are getting another shot at Yale. As freshmen in 2010, UND faced the Bulldogs in the regional semifinal. Yale stormed out to a 3-0 lead and held on for a 3-2 victory (full recap below).

Remarkably, North Dakota is playing in a regional final for the seventh time in Dave Hakstol’s nine seasons as head coach and eighth time in the last ten years. On the other bench, the Bulldogs are playing in their third national quarterfinal game in four seasons. Yale lost to Boston College in 2010 and Minnesota-Duluth in 2011; both of those programs went on to championships in those seasons.

Both teams produced heroes in their opening round games. Bulldogs forward Jesse Root scored his tenth goal of the season just nine seconds into overtime as the Elis downed Minnesota, while North Dakota senior defenseman Andrew MacWilliam potted just his second goal of the season when he knotted the game at 1-1 early in the third period against Niagara. UND senior forward Danny Kristo added the game winner for the Green and White less than a minute later, setting up a Yale-North Dakota regional final. 18 of Kristo’s 26 goals this season have come with his team tied or trailing, and Kristo now has five goals in five playoff games this year.

Yale Team Profile

Head Coach: Keith Allain (7th season at Yale, 135-84-19, .607)
Pairwise Ranking: t-14th
National Ranking: #15
This Season: 19-12-3 overall, 12-9-1 ECAC (3rd)
Last Season: 16-16-3 overall, 10-10-2 ECAC (t-6th)

Team Offense: 2.82 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.74 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 21.2% (33 of 156)
Penalty Kill: 83.2% (129 of 155)

Key Players: Junior F Kenny Agostino (16-23-39), Senior F Andrew Miller (16-20-36), Senior F Antoine Laganiere (14-13-27), Sophomore D Tommy Fallen (7-15-22), Freshman D Ryan Obuchowski (3-9-12), Senior G Jeff Malcolm (17-6-2, 2.40 GAA, .915 SV%, 2 SO)

North Dakota Team Profile

Head Coach: Dave Hakstol (9th season at UND, 235-118-37, .650)
Pairwise Ranking: 8th
National Ranking: #7
This Season: 22-12-7 overall, 14-7-7 WCHA (3rd)
Last Season: 26-13-3 overall (NCAA West Regional Finalist), 16-11-1 WCHA (4th)

Team Offense: 3.27 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.41 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 19.8% (32 of 162)
Penalty Kill: 84.2% (128 of 152)

Key Players: Senior F Corban Knight (15-33-48), Senior F Danny Kristo (26-26-52), Sophomore F Mark MacMillan (13-12-25), Freshman F Rocco Grimaldi (13-23-36), Junior D Derek Forbort (4-12-16), Junior D Dillon Simpson (5-19-24), Freshman G Zane Gothbergg (9-4-3, 2.46 GAA, .920 SV%)

By The Numbers

Last Meeting: March 27, 2010 (Worcester, MA). The Elis took a 3-0 lead into the second intermission and held on for a 3-2 victory over North Dakota. Junior goaltender Ryan Rondeau started only his fifth game of the season and made 34 saves for the Bulldogs, while Denny Kearney scored two of Yale’s thee goals. Goals by UND forwards Brett Hextall and Matt Frattin made it interesting in the final frame, but the Green and White could not find the equalizer and Yale advanced to the regional final against Boston College. It was the Bulldogs’ first NCAA tournament victory since 1954.

Most Important Meeting: The teams have never met in an NCAA regional final or in the Frozen Four, so I will call today’s tilt the most important game ever played between these two squads.

All-time Series: UND leads the all-time series, 5-1-0 (.833).

Game News and Notes

After appearing in the NCAA tournament just one in its first 47 years as an ECAC member, Keith Allain has his Bulldogs in the national playoffs for the fourth time in five seasons. North Dakota head coach Dave Hakstol is 12-3 in NCAA regional games. Yale went 11-3-1 at home this year but just 8-9-1 on the road or at neutral sites.

The Prediction

The first ten minutes will be key for both teams. Yale will hope to survive the opening flurry, while UND will look to play its style from the drop of the puck. Goaltending and officiating will be key, and North Dakota’s power play will need to show signs of life. If Dave Hakstol’s crew can score at least one goal with the man advantage, the Green and White should advance to the Frozen Four. If they are held without a power play goal, it’s anyone’s game. UND 3, Yale 2.

NCAA Tournament Preview: UND vs. Niagara

If history is any indication, a regional matchup against Niagara in Grand Rapids bodes well for North Dakota.

The only time UND has appeared in an NCAA tournament game in Grand Rapids was in 1996-97, when the Fighting Sioux defeated the Big Red of Cornell 6-2 in the national quarterfinal. The win propelled UND to the Frozen Four in Milwaukee, WI, where North Dakota claimed its sixth national title.

And the only time the Green and White faced the Purple Eagles in the national tournament, UND won 4-1 to earn a berth in the Frozen Four, where North Dakota went on to win its seventh NCAA championship.

This game features three of the ten Hobey Baker finalists: Niagara’s junior goaltender Carsen Chubak, who leads the nation with six shutouts, and North Dakota’s pair of senior forwards, linemates Danny Kristo and Corban Knight. Kristo and Knight have combined for 305 career points, the top scoring duo in the country.

UND leads the country with eleven consecutive NCAA appearances and is appearing in the national tournament for the 28th time in program history. By comparison, Niagara is making its fourth tourney bid in its 17th season at the Division I level. The Purple Eagles first competed at the highest level of college hockey in 1996-97, a championship season for North Dakota.

Niagara Team Profile

Head Coach: Dave Burkholder (12th season at NU, 214-174-50, .546)
Pairwise Ranking: t-9th
National Ranking: #14
This Season: 23-9-5 overall, 20-5-2 Atlantic Hockey (1st)
Last Season: 17-11-9 overall, 14-6-7 Atlantic Hockey (2nd)
Team Offense: 3.11 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.51 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 15.3% (22 of 144)
Penalty Kill: 83.9% (141 of 168)

Key Players: Junior F Ryan Murphy (15-21-36), Senior F Giancarlo Iuorio (21-13-34), Senior F Marc Zanette (10-18-28), Junior D Kevin Ryan (1-23-24), Senior D C.J. Chartrain (2-11-13), Junior G Carsen Chubak (23-6-5, 1.91 GAA, .938 SV%, 6 SO)

North Dakota Team Profile

Head Coach: Dave Hakstol (9th season at UND, 234-118-37, .654)
Pairwise Ranking: 8th
National Ranking: #7
This Season: 21-12-7 overall, 14-7-7 WCHA (3rd)
Last Season: 26-13-3 overall (NCAA West Regional Finalist), 16-11-1 WCHA (4th)

Team Offense: 3.30 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.45 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 20.5% (32 of 156)
Penalty Kill: 83.6% (122 of 146)

Key Players: Senior F Corban Knight (15-33-48), Senior F Danny Kristo (25-26-51), Sophomore F Mark MacMillan (13-12-25), Freshman F Rocco Grimaldi (13-22-35), Junior D Derek Forbort (4-11-15), Junior D Dillon Simpson (5-19-24), Junior G Clarke Saunders (13-8-4, 2.26 GAA, .916 SV%, 2 SO)

By The Numbers

Last Meeting: January 2, 2010 (Hoffman Estates, IL). In the opening game of Notre Dame’s Shillelagh Tournament, Evan Trupp scored a pivotal third period goal for UND after Niagara got within one with nine minutes remaining. Trupp also assisted on Brett Hextall’s first period goal.

Last Meeting in the NCAA tournament: March 25, 2000 (Minneapolis, MN). Jeff Panzer tallied three assists to lead North Dakota to a 4-1 victory over the Purple Eagles at Mariucci Arena. UND forward Lee Goren scored early in the third period after NU cut the lead to 2-1 in the middle frame. Andy Kollar made 26 saves for the Fighting Sioux, who outshot Niagara 43-27.

All-time Series: UND leads the all-time series 4-0 and has outscored the Purple Eagles 18-9.

Game News and Notes

Niagara is 0-3 all-time in the NCAA tournament and has been outscored 14-4. North Dakota head coach Dave Hakstol is 11-3 in NCAA regional games. The Purple Eagles went 15-0-2 at home this season, but only 8-9-3 on the road or on neutral ice.

The Prediction

The first ten minutes will be key for both teams. Niagara will hope to survive the opening flurry, while UND will look to play its style from the drop of the puck. Goaltending and officiating will be key, but North Dakota should win this one and advance to the regional final. UND 3, Niagara 1.

Bonus Prediction

In the other regional semifinal, Yale will draw first blood in the second period after a scoreless opening frame. The Gophers will pull away late, setting up a rematch of last season. Minnesota 4, Yale 2.

KRACH predicts the NCAA tournament

Everyone’s favorite hockey ranking scheme, KRACH, can be used to predict likelihoods of game outcomes. So, without further ado, here’s what KRACH says the likelihood of each team winning each round is.

The Midwest region is most balanced, but the brutal schedules actually make it less likely (22.7%) that the champ will emerge from that region than the lopsided East (28%).

The most lopsided is the East, with QU favored by KRACH to have an 84% chance of beating Canisius. What a difference seeding makes — QU is given an 18.7% chance of winning it all vs. Minnesota’s 14.9%, despite Minnesota just eking out the KRACH edge over Quinnipiac.

Both #2 New Hampshire and #2 Miami are actually underdogs to their WCHA 3-seed foes, Denver and MSU-Mankato, respectively.

KRACH West Game 1 Game 2 (Region Champ) Game 3 (Frozen four semifinal) Game 4 (National Champ)
157.487 1. Minnesota 65.64% 42.99% 25.75% 14.86%
82.4324 4. Yale 34.36% 17.21% 7.56% 3.17%
100 2. North Dakota 63.02% 27.94% 13.61% 6.34%
58.6682 3. Niagara 36.98% 11.87% 4.25% 1.45%
Northeast
127.142 1. Mass.-Lowell 56.72% 32.35% 17.27% 9.07%
97.0033 4. Wisconsin 43.28% 21.77% 10.20% 4.68%
92.3517 2. New Hampshire 48.24% 21.69% 9.90% 4.42%
99.1066 3. Denver 51.76% 24.18% 11.45% 5.31%
East
157.423 1. Quinnipiac 83.83% 53.06% 31.97% 18.67%
30.3748 4. Canisius 16.17% 4.05% 0.92% 0.20%
100.909 2. Boston College 55.73% 25.17% 12.41% 5.90%
80.1731 3. Union 44.27% 17.72% 7.72% 3.24%
Midwest
111.145 1. Notre Dame 55.05% 28.24% 13.73% 6.85%
90.736 4. St. Cloud St 44.95% 20.78% 9.09% 4.09%
105.133 2. Miami (OH) 49.82% 25.35% 11.99% 5.82%
105.899 3. Minnesota St 50.18% 25.63% 12.16% 5.93%

A look back at 2013 forecasts

I sometimes include a look at the previous week’s forecasts in my weekly posts, but I don’t think I’ve ever done a formal review of the forecasts at the end of the year before. Given the volatility of PWR, it sometimes seems kind of hard to believe that we can predict tight curves for where teams are likely to end up 10-12 games out, so a review of my success definitely seems in order.

Also, with the conference tournament results in, I’ll take a look at the nagging question of weighted vs unweighted forecasts for the conference tournaments.

A look back the big predictions

On January 15 in A first look at the NCAA hockey Pairwise Rankings I included this chart:

UND went 6-4-4 and emerged #7 in the PWR on March 4 (see Ranking trend charts). That outcome is right on the high end of the thick part of the curve for “Win 8”, which is the closest equivalent to win 6 and tie 4, so the forecast was pretty much spot on.

On the same day, I posted this chart of Minnesota:

The Gophers went 8-4-2 and were #2 in the PWR since mid-January. That’s just on the high side for “Win 10”. The forecast would have led readers to expect a ranking more in the range of 4-5 (between the Win 8 and Win 10 curves) for that performance.

On February 21, I posted this update for Minnesota:

By then it was more clear that Minnesota was sewing up the #2 spot. Indeed, Minnesota went 4-1-1 and finished #2.

Also on February 21, I posted this chart of Boston University:

They went 4-3 and were #16 in the PWR on March 11.

I also noted that Providence had some upside potential but needed to win.

Providence went 4-0-2 and finished #21 on March 11.

On weighted vs. unweighted conference tournament projections

There were some good questions asked about why I post the raw remaining possibilities for conference tournaments instead of weighted probabilities.

I responded that the real reason I do it is because the possibilities are factual, while the probabilities are sort of subjective. But, I also noted that: 1) it doesn’t matter much (conference tournament pairings tend to be of similar strength teams), and 2) KRACH didn’t really reflect the “hot” teams that tend to outperform in the conference tournaments.

After seeing QU lay an egg, CC go on a tear, and Michigan continue its hot streak, I thought it would be fun to run these numbers.

Team 1 Team 2 Team 1 KRACH Team 2 KRACH Predicted Winner Predicted Win
Percentage
Actual Winner Prediction correct?
Niagara Canisius 60.0463 25.3254 Niagara 70% Canisius
Mercyhurst Connectictut 28.7672 34.8 Connectictut 55% Mercyhurst
Canisius Mercyhurst 25.3254 28.7672 Mercyhurst 53% Canisius
Miami Michigan 106.036 47.7859 Miami 69% Michigan
Ohio State Notre Dame 54.5277 97.1286 Notre Dame 64% Notre Dame Yes
Michigan Notre Dame 47.7859 97.1286 Notre Dame 67% Notre Dame Yes
Quinnipiac Brown 158.707 53.8762 Quinnipiac 75% Brown
Union Yale 68.2106 87.5804 Yale 56% Union
Brown Union 53.8762 68.2106 Union 56% Union Yes
Quinnipiac Yale 158.707 87.5804 Quinnipiac 64% Quinnipiac Yes
Mass.-Lowell Providence 109.609 74.2102 Mass.-Lowell 60% Mass.-Lowell Yes
Boston University Boston College 70.2589 103.267 Boston College 60% Boston University
Mass.-Lowell Boston University 109.609 70.2589 Mass.-Lowell 61% Mass.-Lowell Yes
St. Cloud State Wisconsin 90.3013 78.0123 St. Cloud State 54% Wisconsin
Colorado College Minnesota 58.256 162.307 Minnesota 74% Colorado College
Wisconsin Colorado College 78.0123 58.256 Wisconsin 57% Wisconsin Yes
North Dakota Colorado College 100 58.256 North Dakota 63% Colorado College
Minnesota State Wisconsin 106.123 78.0123 Minnesota State 58% Wisconsin

KRACH predicted 7 of 18 games correctly. Given the small sample, I’m happy to call that a coin flip. Somewhat amusingly, it missed on the four largest.

Conclusions

The forecasts seem grounded in reality and really do seem to provide pretty useful information.

Despite my note above about KRACH and tournaments, I’ll still probably post my annual “KRACH predicts the NCAAs”, and that will be it for this season. I’ve got lots of great ideas for next year, so hopefully I’ll find the time to get some of them implemented, and I’ll see you then!

Mid-Saturday night update

With Saturday’s first three games decided (Notre Dame over Ohio State, Quinnipiac over Yale, and Michigan over Miami), the NCAA tournament field is shaping up.

Changes: Notre Dame a lock, Mankato a lock, Niagara a lock, Western Michigan out, Ohio State out

Locks (11): Quinnipiac, Minnesota, Miami, Boston College, Notre Dame, Mass.-Lowell, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Mankato, Niagara, Denver

Winner guaranteed a slot (but needs to win) (6 teams 3 slots): Union or Brown, Wisconsin or Colorado College, Canisius or Mercyhurst

In if they win (2): Boston University, Michigan

At large possible (2): Yale, St Cloud

Update- The only remaining uncertainty seems to be that St. Cloud and Yale are in line (in that order) for BU and Michigan’s spots. If either lose, St. Cloud gets a spot. If both lose, Yale does too.

As always, the above is my personal transcription and interpretation of the below computer generated results. So, if you see anything inconsistent between the two, or wrong with either, let me know.

Team PWR Possibilities
Overall By number of wins
Quinnipiac #1 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
UMN #2 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Miami #3 12.5%
#4 50.0%
#5 37.5%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Boston College #5 62.5%
#6 37.5%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Yale #13 37.5%
#14 37.5%
#15 25.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
n/a
Mass.-Lowell #3 62.5%
#4 25.0%
#5 0.0%
#6 12.5%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#3 25.0% 100.0%
#4 50.0%  
#5    
#6 25.0%  
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0%
UND #6 50.0%
#7 0.0%
#8 50.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
New Hampshire #7 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Notre Dame #3 25.0%
#4 25.0%
#5 0.0%
#6 0.0%
#7 0.0%
#8 50.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#3   50.0%
#4   50.0%
#5    
#6    
#7    
#8 100.0%  
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0%
Mankato #9 25.0%
#10 25.0%
#11 46.9%
#12 3.1%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Niagara #10 50.0%
#11 50.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
SCSU #11 3.1%
#12 46.9%
#13 50.0%
Tournament invites: 75.0%
n/a
Denver #9 75.0%
#10 25.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Western Michigan #14 25.0%
#15 50.0%
#16 25.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Union #12 50.0%
#13 0.0%
#14 0.0%
#15 12.5%
#16 37.5%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#12   100.0%
#13    
#14    
#15 25.0%  
#16 75.0%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
UW #13 12.5%
#14 37.5%
#15 0.0%
#16 12.5%
#17 12.5%
#18 0.0%
#19 25.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#13   25.0%
#14   75.0%
#15    
#16 25.0%  
#17 25.0%  
#18    
#19 50.0%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Providence #21 12.5%
#22 12.5%
#23 75.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Boston University #15 12.5%
#16 12.5%
#17 40.6%
#18 31.3%
#19 3.1%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#15   25.0%
#16   25.0%
#17 43.8% 37.5%
#18 50.0% 12.5%
#19 6.3%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Rensselaer #17 15.6%
#18 46.9%
#19 37.5%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Brown #20 59.4%
#21 28.1%
#22 12.5%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#20 18.8% 100.0%
#21 56.3%  
#22 25.0%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Robert Morris #16 12.5%
#17 31.3%
#18 21.9%
#19 31.3%
#20 3.1%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
CC #24 50.0%
#25 50.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#24   100.0%
#25 100.0%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Ohio State #29 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Michigan #25 25.0%
#26 25.0%
#27 0.0%
#28 50.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#25   50.0%
#26   50.0%
#27    
#28 100.0%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Connecticut Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Canisius Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Mercyhurst Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%

Saturday morning update

Here’s how things look going into Saturday’s games…

In (8):
Quinnipiac, Minnesota, Miami, Boston College, Mass-Lowell, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Denver

Can get in at large (6): Yale, Notre Dame, Mankato, Niagara, St Cloud, Western Michigan

Needs to win conference tournament (9): Union, Wisconsin, Boston University, Brown, Colorado College, Ohio State, Michigan, Canisius, Mercyhurst

As always, the above are my transcription and interpretation of the tables below. The tables are computer generated so much more likely to be correct, so if you see any discrepancies or have any question let me know.

Team PWR Possibilities
Overall By number of wins
Quinnipiac #1 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#1 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0%
UMN #2 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Miami #3 47.3%
#4 44.9%
#5 7.8%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3 28.1% 45.3% 87.5%
#4 56.3% 54.7% 12.5%
#5 15.6%    
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Boston College #4 24.6%
#5 67.2%
#6 8.2%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Yale #5 11.3%
#6 34.0%
#7 4.7%
#8 0.0%
#9 0.0%
#10 0.0%
#11 0.0%
#12 5.9%
#13 18.8%
#14 17.6%
#15 7.8%
Tournament invites: 69.5%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#5   22.7%
#6   68.0%
#7   9.4%
#8    
#9    
#10    
#11    
#12 11.7%  
#13 37.5%  
#14 35.2%  
#15 15.6%  
Tournament invites: 39.1% 100.0%
Mass.-Lowell #3 46.5%
#4 23.8%
#5 13.3%
#6 14.5%
#7 2.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#3 11.7% 81.3%
#4 28.9% 18.8%
#5 26.6%  
#6 28.9%  
#7 3.9%  
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0%
UND #6 43.0%
#7 43.8%
#8 7.0%
#9 6.3%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
New Hampshire #6 0.4%
#7 49.6%
#8 50.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Notre Dame #3 6.3%
#4 6.6%
#5 0.4%
#6 0.0%
#7 0.0%
#8 7.8%
#9 17.6%
#10 14.1%
#11 8.2%
#12 6.3%
#13 7.8%
#14 3.1%
#15 15.6%
#16 6.3%
Tournament invites: 72.7%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     25.0%
#4     26.6%
#5     1.6%
#6      
#7      
#8 3.1% 25.0%  
#9 18.0% 25.0% 9.4%
#10 10.9%   34.4%
#11 11.7% 6.3% 3.1%
#12 6.3% 12.5%  
#13   31.3%  
#14 6.3%    
#15 31.3%    
#16 12.5%    
Tournament invites: 50.0% 90.6% 100.0%
Mankato #8 18.0%
#9 31.6%
#10 23.0%
#11 19.1%
#12 5.1%
#13 3.1%
Tournament invites: 96.1%
n/a
Niagara #10 28.9%
#11 35.2%
#12 24.2%
#13 10.5%
#14 1.2%
Tournament invites: 85.9%
n/a
SCSU #10 1.6%
#11 21.5%
#12 33.2%
#13 31.3%
#14 11.3%
#15 1.2%
Tournament invites: 72.7%
n/a
Denver #8 17.2%
#9 44.5%
#10 29.7%
#11 7.0%
#12 1.6%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Western Michigan #13 3.1%
#14 28.1%
#15 37.5%
#16 31.3%
Tournament invites: 3.1%
n/a
Union #11 7.4%
#12 19.1%
#13 12.9%
#14 13.7%
#15 15.6%
#16 21.9%
#17 9.4%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#11   14.8%
#12   38.3%
#13   25.8%
#14 6.3% 21.1%
#15 31.3%  
#16 43.8%  
#17 18.8%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
UW #10 2.7%
#11 1.6%
#12 4.7%
#13 9.4%
#14 18.8%
#15 9.8%
#16 19.5%
#17 7.8%
#18 3.9%
#19 21.9%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#10   5.5%
#11   3.1%
#12   9.4%
#13   18.8%
#14   37.5%
#15   19.5%
#16 32.8% 6.3%
#17 15.6%  
#18 7.8%  
#19 43.8%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Providence #20 7.8%
#21 14.1%
#22 40.6%
#23 25.0%
#24 12.5%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Boston University #13 3.1%
#14 6.3%
#15 12.5%
#16 12.5%
#17 38.3%
#18 13.7%
#19 10.2%
#20 3.5%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#13   6.3%
#14   12.5%
#15   25.0%
#16   25.0%
#17 49.2% 27.3%
#18 23.4% 3.9%
#19 20.3%  
#20 7.0%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Rensselaer #16 3.1%
#17 30.5%
#18 49.2%
#19 17.2%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Brown #19 3.5%
#20 68.4%
#21 20.3%
#22 6.3%
#23 1.6%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#19   7.0%
#20 43.8% 93.0%
#21 40.6%  
#22 12.5%  
#23 3.1%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Robert Morris #16 5.5%
#17 14.1%
#18 33.2%
#19 46.9%
#20 0.4%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
CC #22 1.6%
#23 41.8%
#24 24.2%
#25 26.2%
#26 6.3%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#22   3.1%
#23 26.6% 57.0%
#24 10.2% 38.3%
#25 50.8% 1.6%
#26 12.5%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Ohio State #20 4.7%
#21 6.3%
#22 4.7%
#23 3.1%
#24 7.8%
#25 10.9%
#26 0.0%
#27 12.5%
#28 25.0%
#29 25.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#20     18.8%
#21     25.0%
#22     18.8%
#23     12.5%
#24   31.3%  
#25   18.8% 25.0%
#26      
#27   50.0%  
#28 50.0%    
#29 50.0%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Michigan #25 12.5%
#26 12.5%
#27 2.3%
#28 10.2%
#29 12.5%
#30 0.0%
#31 0.8%
Non-TUC 49.2%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#25     50.0%
#26     50.0%
#27   9.4%  
#28   40.6%  
#29   50.0%  
#30      
#31 1.6%    
Non-TUC 98.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Connecticut Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Canisius Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Mercyhurst Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%

Mid-Friday night update

With 4 of tonight’s games completed (Wisconin over St Cloud, Brown over Quinnipiac, Canisius over Niagara, and Mass-Lowell over Providence), here’s an update on the NCAA tournament outlook.

Changes: Denver is in, Providence is out, Boston University needs to win its tournament, Robert Morris is out

Overall scenario as of now:

In (8): Quinnipiac, Minnesota, Miami, Boston College, Mass.-Lowell, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Denver

Can make it at large (8): Yale, Notre Dame, Mankato, Niagara, St Cloud St, Western Michigan, Union, Wisconsin

Need to win tournament (8): Boston University, Brown, Colorado College, Ohio St, Michigan, Connecticut, Canisius, Mercyhurst

As always, though the table is computer-generated, I have been known to read/transcribe it wrong, so let me know if any of the above doesn’t match up or if you have any questions!

Team PWR Possibilities
Overall By number of wins
Quinnipiac #1 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#1 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0%
UMN #2 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Miami #3 41.7%
#4 45.5%
#5 10.0%
#6 2.8%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3 21.7% 29.3% 94.0%
#4 55.4% 65.4% 6.0%
#5 17.8% 4.5%  
#6 5.1% 0.8%  
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Boston College #3 18.8%
#4 15.9%
#5 41.2%
#6 22.0%
#7 2.1%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     75.0%
#4 19.2%   25.0%
#5 50.1% 64.6%  
#6 27.9% 32.3%  
#7 2.7% 3.1%  
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Yale #3 1.4%
#4 15.7%
#5 21.8%
#6 26.8%
#7 12.2%
#8 3.6%
#9 1.8%
#10 0.0%
#11 1.2%
#12 4.4%
#13 5.7%
#14 3.9%
#15 1.5%
Tournament invites: 96.1%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     5.4%
#4   4.0% 56.2%
#5 6.9% 23.7% 38.4%
#6 6.6% 59.1%  
#7 28.3% 6.6%  
#8 3.7% 5.8%  
#9 4.4% 0.9%  
#10      
#11 3.6%    
#12 13.3%    
#13 17.0%    
#14 11.6%    
#15 4.5%    
Tournament invites: 88.2% 100.0% 100.0%
Mass.-Lowell #3 35.1%
#4 14.6%
#5 24.2%
#6 20.9%
#7 3.8%
#8 1.2%
#9 0.3%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#3 1.6% 68.6%
#4 10.9% 18.3%
#5 35.2% 13.1%
#6 41.8%  
#7 7.5%  
#8 2.4%  
#9 0.6%  
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0%
UND #5 0.7%
#6 27.0%
#7 60.9%
#8 3.1%
#9 8.2%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
New Hampshire #6 0.5%
#7 20.7%
#8 77.1%
#9 1.7%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Notre Dame #3 3.1%
#4 8.3%
#5 2.1%
#6 0.0%
#7 0.3%
#8 2.7%
#9 19.8%
#10 16.5%
#11 9.6%
#12 2.9%
#13 6.4%
#14 4.7%
#15 13.9%
#16 9.5%
#17 0.3%
Tournament invites: 77.2%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     12.6%
#4     33.1%
#5     8.5%
#6      
#7   1.0%  
#8 0.5% 9.8%  
#9 17.0% 39.2% 6.1%
#10 22.5%   21.1%
#11 7.5% 5.0% 18.4%
#12 2.5% 6.3% 0.3%
#13 0.2% 25.4%  
#14 3.0% 12.6%  
#15 27.4% 0.8%  
#16 19.1%    
#17 0.5%    
Tournament invites: 55.4% 98.2% 100.0%
Mankato #8 9.7%
#9 46.8%
#10 24.7%
#11 11.8%
#12 4.5%
#13 2.6%
Tournament invites: 98.5%
n/a
Niagara #9 0.0%
#10 6.0%
#11 25.6%
#12 44.4%
#13 21.9%
#14 2.1%
Tournament invites: 91.3%
n/a
SCSU #10 2.1%
#11 16.7%
#12 26.1%
#13 37.7%
#14 14.7%
#15 2.9%
Tournament invites: 78.3%
n/a
Denver #8 2.5%
#9 21.4%
#10 48.8%
#11 25.4%
#12 2.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Western Michigan #13 8.3%
#14 42.9%
#15 36.7%
#16 12.1%
Tournament invites: 27.7%
n/a
Union #10 0.0%
#11 3.2%
#12 9.0%
#13 10.0%
#14 10.7%
#15 21.5%
#16 23.7%
#17 9.4%
#18 5.6%
#19 4.6%
#20 2.2%
Tournament invites: 29.4%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#10     0.1%
#11     13.0%
#12     35.9%
#13   1.1% 38.0%
#14 4.7% 14.1% 13.1%
#15 14.1% 40.4%  
#16 27.4% 35.1%  
#17 16.6% 9.3%  
#18 16.9%    
#19 13.7%    
#20 6.6%    
Tournament invites: 4.1% 7.3% 100.0%
UW #10 2.0%
#11 6.7%
#12 6.7%
#13 6.7%
#14 18.0%
#15 11.7%
#16 25.6%
#17 14.9%
#18 3.7%
#19 3.8%
#20 0.1%
Tournament invites: 50.8%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#10   3.9%
#11   13.4%
#12   13.4%
#13   13.4%
#14 1.8% 34.2%
#15 6.7% 16.7%
#16 46.3% 4.9%
#17 29.9%  
#18 7.5%  
#19 7.6%  
#20 0.1%  
Tournament invites: 1.7% 100.0%
Providence #18 2.3%
#19 9.9%
#20 18.1%
#21 21.2%
#22 25.0%
#23 16.6%
#24 6.1%
#25 0.8%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Boston University #13 0.7%
#14 2.6%
#15 8.6%
#16 11.1%
#17 19.2%
#18 10.1%
#19 22.4%
#20 19.2%
#21 5.0%
#22 1.2%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#13     2.9%
#14     10.3%
#15     34.6%
#16   12.5% 31.7%
#17   57.7% 19.1%
#18 11.6% 15.6% 1.5%
#19 40.0% 9.4%  
#20 36.0% 4.8%  
#21 10.0%    
#22 2.4%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Rensselaer #14 0.6%
#15 3.1%
#16 16.8%
#17 45.7%
#18 30.0%
#19 3.8%
Tournament invites: 0.7%
n/a
Brown #17 3.1%
#18 13.8%
#19 28.6%
#20 25.9%
#21 14.9%
#22 8.7%
#23 4.0%
#24 1.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
#17   6.2%
#18   27.5%
#19 11.0% 46.2%
#20 31.7% 20.1%
#21 29.9%  
#22 17.4%  
#23 8.1%  
#24 2.0%  
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Robert Morris #16 1.1%
#17 7.3%
#18 29.1%
#19 12.5%
#20 0.0%
#21 0.9%
#22 1.7%
#23 5.9%
#24 7.5%
#25 17.7%
#26 9.4%
#27 6.9%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
CC #18 0.1%
#19 1.0%
#20 2.2%
#21 4.1%
#22 6.7%
#23 13.1%
#24 16.9%
#25 22.1%
#26 31.0%
#27 2.7%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#18     0.5%
#19     4.1%
#20     8.9%
#21     16.2%
#22   4.9% 21.9%
#23   18.7% 33.7%
#24 9.2% 34.6% 14.5%
#25 29.2% 29.9% 0.2%
#26 56.2% 11.8%  
#27 5.4%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Ohio State #18 0.8%
#19 2.1%
#20 6.6%
#21 6.6%
#22 4.4%
#23 9.2%
#24 4.3%
#25 3.5%
#26 0.0%
#27 9.0%
#28 22.2%
#29 25.0%
#30 0.0%
#31 6.3%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#18     3.1%
#19     8.6%
#20     26.3%
#21   0.1% 26.3%
#22   6.0% 11.5%
#23   18.8% 18.0%
#24   17.3%  
#25   7.9% 6.3%
#26      
#27   36.2%  
#28 37.5% 13.8%  
#29 50.0%    
#30 0.0%    
#31 12.5%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Michigan #23 1.6%
#24 9.4%
#25 10.2%
#26 3.9%
#27 4.5%
#28 8.0%
#29 10.2%
#30 2.3%
#31 0.7%
#32 0.3%
Non-TUC 49.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#23     6.3%
#24     37.5%
#25     40.6%
#26     15.6%
#27   17.8%  
#28   32.2%  
#29   40.8%  
#30   9.2%  
#31 1.4%    
#32 0.7%    
Non-TUC 97.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Connecticut #24 2.6%
#25 9.1%
#26 8.7%
#27 4.5%
#28 0.0%
#29 5.2%
#30 12.3%
#31 2.8%
#32 4.8%
Non-TUC 50.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#24     10.5%
#25     36.4%
#26     35.0%
#27     18.2%
#28      
#29   20.7%  
#30   49.1%  
#31   11.1%  
#32   19.1%  
Non-TUC 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Canisius Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 50.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 100.0%
Mercyhurst Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Remaining possible outcomes after Thursday night.

With Wisconsin and Colorado College winning, Alaska’s hopes are officially dashed, Robert Morris’s hopes have been reduced to very very slim, and St. Cloud can now (almost!) clinch an NCAA berth with a single win.

Edit — Hat tip to RHamilton for pointing out in the comments that the 100% formerly under SCSU was rounded and there are indeed 10 very rare scenarios in which St Cloud St can win a game and miss the NCAA tournament.

Team PWR Possibilities
Overall By number of wins
Quinnipiac #1 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMN #2 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Miami #3 55.4%
#4 34.8%
#5 8.1%
#6 1.7%
#7 0.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3 37.2% 51.7% 95.6%
#4 45.2% 44.4% 4.4%
#5 14.4% 3.4%  
#6 3.2% 0.5%  
#7 0.1%    
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Boston College #3 18.8%
#4 23.9%
#5 28.7%
#6 18.9%
#7 7.7%
#8 2.0%
#9 0.1%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     75.0%
#4 21.1% 28.5% 25.0%
#5 34.1% 46.5%  
#6 27.5% 20.6%  
#7 13.4% 3.9%  
#8 3.7% 0.4%  
#9 0.3%    
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Yale #3 1.4%
#4 16.0%
#5 21.4%
#6 16.8%
#7 12.1%
#8 6.3%
#9 3.9%
#10 2.7%
#11 2.7%
#12 4.2%
#13 6.4%
#14 4.7%
#15 1.2%
#16 0.2%
#17 0.0%
Tournament invites: 96.3%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     5.6%
#4   3.9% 57.5%
#5 3.0% 29.7% 32.3%
#6 4.4% 34.4% 4.0%
#7 8.6% 21.8% 0.7%
#8 9.2% 7.7%  
#9 9.3% 2.0%  
#10 7.5% 0.5%  
#11 8.1% 0.0%  
#12 12.5% 0.0%  
#13 19.2%    
#14 14.0%    
#15 3.5%    
#16 0.6%    
#17 0.0%    
Tournament invites: 89.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mass.-Lowell #3 18.0%
#4 7.0%
#5 16.9%
#6 30.5%
#7 17.9%
#8 8.1%
#9 1.5%
#10 0.1%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3   1.7% 70.1%
#4   10.2% 17.9%
#5 9.7% 36.5% 11.8%
#6 41.8% 38.3% 0.2%
#7 30.4% 11.1%  
#8 15.1% 2.0%  
#9 2.8% 0.3%  
#10 0.1% 0.0%  
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UND #5 2.8%
#6 9.9%
#7 27.2%
#8 22.1%
#9 21.7%
#10 13.3%
#11 3.0%
#12 0.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
New Hampshire #5 0.5%
#6 4.8%
#7 15.2%
#8 41.1%
#9 33.3%
#10 5.0%
#11 0.1%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
n/a
Notre Dame #3 6.3%
#4 6.6%
#5 1.7%
#6 0.5%
#7 2.3%
#8 2.4%
#9 7.8%
#10 16.4%
#11 13.5%
#12 6.5%
#13 8.4%
#14 6.5%
#15 10.8%
#16 8.4%
#17 1.5%
#18 0.1%
Tournament invites: 79.7%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     25.1%
#4     26.5%
#5   1.8% 4.9%
#6   1.9% 0.1%
#7   9.3%  
#8 0.4% 8.8% 0.0%
#9 6.5% 15.7% 2.6%
#10 17.7% 11.1% 19.3%
#11 16.3% 2.4% 19.1%
#12 7.6% 8.7% 2.2%
#13 2.3% 28.8% 0.2%
#14 7.9% 10.3%  
#15 21.1% 1.2%  
#16 16.9% 0.0%  
#17 3.1%    
#18 0.3%    
Tournament invites: 60.4% 97.9% 100.0%
Mankato #5 0.0%
#6 0.3%
#7 1.2%
#8 4.4%
#9 19.1%
#10 34.2%
#11 26.2%
#12 11.8%
#13 2.6%
#14 0.2%
Tournament invites: 99.0%
n/a
Niagara #4 5.7%
#5 10.5%
#6 8.5%
#7 7.0%
#8 3.1%
#9 2.3%
#10 5.2%
#11 11.9%
#12 21.3%
#13 21.4%
#14 2.9%
#15 0.2%
Tournament invites: 93.5%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#4     22.7%
#5   1.1% 40.9%
#6   9.1% 25.1%
#7   18.5% 9.5%
#8   10.8% 1.7%
#9 0.0% 9.0% 0.1%
#10 1.7% 17.5%  
#11 12.7% 22.3%  
#12 37.5% 10.2%  
#13 42.1% 1.4%  
#14 5.7%    
#15 0.3%    
Tournament invites: 87.2% 99.5% 100.0%
SCSU #3 0.2%
#4 6.0%
#5 9.4%
#6 7.9%
#7 9.4%
#8 9.8%
#9 5.0%
#10 3.3%
#11 7.6%
#12 16.0%
#13 18.3%
#14 6.0%
#15 1.1%
Tournament invites: 91.1%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     0.8%
#4     23.8%
#5   1.2% 36.5%
#6   6.4% 25.3%
#7   26.5% 10.9%
#8   36.7% 2.4%
#9 0.2% 19.3% 0.2%
#10 3.1% 7.1%  
#11 14.0% 2.4%  
#12 31.9% 0.3%  
#13 36.5% 0.0%  
#14 12.1%    
#15 2.2%    
Tournament invites: 82.3% >99.9% 100.0%
Denver #7 0.0%
#8 0.8%
#9 5.3%
#10 18.9%
#11 30.0%
#12 30.1%
#13 14.7%
#14 0.2%
Tournament invites: 97.0%
n/a
Western Michigan #13 12.3%
#14 52.5%
#15 29.1%
#16 6.1%
#17 0.0%
Tournament invites: 48.1%
n/a
Union #9 0.0%
#10 0.4%
#11 2.7%
#12 7.0%
#13 9.4%
#14 11.9%
#15 26.8%
#16 24.6%
#17 7.5%
#18 4.1%
#19 3.2%
#20 1.9%
#21 0.4%
#22 0.1%
Tournament invites: 37.9%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#9     0.1%
#10     1.7%
#11     10.6%
#12     28.1%
#13   0.6% 36.6%
#14 4.4% 11.4% 22.9%
#15 21.6% 47.0%  
#16 28.0% 36.8%  
#17 17.1% 4.3%  
#18 12.4%    
#19 9.5%    
#20 5.6%    
#21 1.2%    
#22 0.2%    
Tournament invites: 11.9% 21.4% 100.0%
UW #10 0.4%
#11 2.3%
#12 3.0%
#13 4.6%
#14 9.5%
#15 7.7%
#16 11.7%
#17 17.5%
#18 21.1%
#19 14.7%
#20 6.1%
#21 1.5%
#22 0.1%
Tournament invites: 26.3%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#10     1.4%
#11     9.1%
#12     12.1%
#13     18.2%
#14   2.0% 36.1%
#15   12.7% 18.2%
#16 0.1% 41.6% 4.8%
#17 20.6% 28.7%  
#18 36.8% 10.7%  
#19 27.3% 4.2%  
#20 12.1% 0.1%  
#21 2.9%    
#22 0.1%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 5.3% 100.0%
Providence #13 0.0%
#14 0.7%
#15 5.4%
#16 9.6%
#17 7.4%
#18 9.5%
#19 17.2%
#20 17.3%
#21 13.1%
#22 9.3%
#23 6.9%
#24 2.7%
#25 0.7%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#13     0.0%
#14     2.9%
#15     21.4%
#16   2.0% 36.4%
#17 0.0% 5.0% 24.6%
#18 5.3% 18.5% 9.2%
#19 14.2% 36.2% 4.1%
#20 20.9% 26.1% 1.4%
#21 20.7% 11.0%  
#22 18.1% 1.2%  
#23 13.8%    
#24 5.5%    
#25 1.4%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.2% 100.0%
Boston University #13 2.0%
#14 4.0%
#15 11.6%
#16 10.9%
#17 9.7%
#18 10.5%
#19 20.7%
#20 18.4%
#21 8.9%
#22 3.1%
#23 0.3%
Tournament invites: 25.8%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#13     7.9%
#14   0.5% 15.5%
#15   3.3% 43.2%
#16   19.6% 24.1%
#17   30.1% 8.5%
#18 8.5% 24.0% 0.7%
#19 33.3% 16.2%  
#20 34.2% 5.3%  
#21 17.4% 0.7%  
#22 6.0% 0.2%  
#23 0.6%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 3.2% 100.0%
Rensselaer #14 0.8%
#15 6.1%
#16 24.7%
#17 34.0%
#18 22.9%
#19 8.9%
#20 2.4%
#21 0.3%
Tournament invites: 5.0%
n/a
Alaska #16 0.2%
#17 1.9%
#18 5.1%
#19 11.1%
#20 15.4%
#21 15.2%
#22 15.0%
#23 15.0%
#24 12.0%
#25 6.4%
#26 2.4%
#27 0.2%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Cornell #19 0.9%
#20 2.4%
#21 4.2%
#22 8.8%
#23 19.6%
#24 28.6%
#25 24.3%
#26 10.2%
#27 1.1%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Brown #16 0.1%
#17 0.8%
#18 4.2%
#19 10.5%
#20 17.4%
#21 20.4%
#22 14.3%
#23 8.0%
#24 6.5%
#25 6.2%
#26 7.9%
#27 3.0%
#28 0.5%
#29 0.1%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#16     0.3%
#17     3.4%
#18     16.9%
#19 0.5% 5.3% 32.7%
#20 4.2% 22.6% 26.2%
#21 7.3% 32.5% 17.6%
#22 8.3% 25.8% 3.0%
#23 13.4% 8.5%  
#24 13.5% 4.9%  
#25 18.1% 0.5%  
#26 23.6%    
#27 9.1%    
#28 1.6%    
#29 0.2%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Dartmouth #18 0.1%
#19 2.4%
#20 10.4%
#21 23.0%
#22 31.5%
#23 22.0%
#24 9.5%
#25 1.1%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Robert Morris #15 0.0%
#16 3.5%
#17 19.7%
#18 20.1%
#19 6.5%
#20 0.9%
#21 1.9%
#22 4.6%
#23 7.2%
#24 10.6%
#25 15.9%
#26 7.0%
#27 1.9%
Tournament invites: 0.2%
n/a
CC #18 0.1%
#19 0.9%
#20 2.6%
#21 5.7%
#22 7.7%
#23 11.4%
#24 15.4%
#25 25.2%
#26 26.2%
#27 4.8%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#18     0.4%
#19     3.5%
#20     10.4%
#21   2.1% 20.6%
#22   7.0% 23.7%
#23 1.5% 15.9% 26.7%
#24 7.6% 33.3% 13.3%
#25 34.0% 31.8% 1.3%
#26 47.4% 9.9% 0.1%
#27 9.5%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Ohio State #18 2.1%
#19 3.0%
#20 4.9%
#21 5.3%
#22 5.0%
#23 6.3%
#24 4.4%
#25 4.4%
#26 2.8%
#27 8.1%
#28 22.3%
#29 25.1%
#30 0.2%
#31 6.1%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#18     8.2%
#19     12.0%
#20   0.0% 19.7%
#21   1.4% 19.7%
#22   5.4% 14.8%
#23   11.7% 13.5%
#24   12.7% 4.9%
#25   11.7% 5.9%
#26   9.7% 1.3%
#27   32.4%  
#28 37.5% 14.3%  
#29 49.8% 0.7%  
#30 0.4%    
#31 12.3%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Ferris State #26 5.9%
#27 44.0%
#28 39.8%
#29 9.6%
#30 0.7%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
St. Lawrence #24 0.0%
#25 0.1%
#26 22.4%
#27 28.3%
#28 29.4%
#29 16.7%
#30 3.1%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Nebraska-Omaha #29 20.3%
#30 47.8%
#31 20.8%
#32 11.1%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Michigan #21 0.0%
#22 0.2%
#23 1.8%
#24 6.5%
#25 8.8%
#26 7.5%
#27 3.8%
#28 8.0%
#29 11.0%
#30 2.4%
#31 1.1%
#32 0.6%
Non-TUC 48.3%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#21     0.1%
#22     0.8%
#23     7.0%
#24     26.0%
#25     35.4%
#26     30.1%
#27   14.5% 0.6%
#28   32.0%  
#29   43.8%  
#30   9.7%  
#31 2.2%    
#32 1.1%    
Non-TUC 96.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Connecticut #21 0.2%
#22 0.3%
#23 1.5%
#24 3.6%
#25 6.8%
#26 7.8%
#27 4.8%
#28 0.0%
#29 8.3%
#30 12.2%
#31 2.0%
#32 2.5%
Non-TUC 50.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#21     0.8%
#22     1.2%
#23     6.2%
#24     14.3%
#25     27.1%
#26     31.0%
#27     19.3%
#28      
#29   33.3%  
#30   48.9%  
#31   8.0%  
#32   9.9%  
Non-TUC 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Holy Cross #29 8.9%
#30 33.5%
#31 46.1%
#32 11.4%
Tournament invites: 0.0%
n/a
Canisius Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Mercyhurst Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

My predictions for the Hobey Baker Top Ten

This is my yearly attempt to predict the ten finalists for the Hobey Baker Memorial Award. In the past, my results have been mixed, from a high of seven to a low of four.

Feel free to comment or add your own list below.

Skaters (in alphabetical order):

Greg Carey, junior forward, St. Lawrence (28 goals, 23 assists for 51 points)

Johnny Gaudreau, sophomore forward, Boston College (20-29-49)

Erik Haula, junior forward, Minnesota (16-33-49)

George Hughes, senior defenseman, St. Lawrence (5-32-37)

Corban Knight, senior forward, North Dakota (15-33-48)

Danny Kristo, senior forward, North Dakota (24-26-50)

Drew LeBlanc, senior forward, St. Cloud State (13-37-50)

Nate Schmidt, junior defenseman, Minnesota (8-23-31)

Ryan Walters, junior forward, Nebraska-Omaha (22-30-52)

Goaltender:

Eric Hartzell, senior goaltender, Quinnipiac (26-5-5, 1.50 goals-against average, .944 save percentage, 4 shutouts)

Honorable Mention:

Matt Leitner, sophomore forward, Minnesota State (17-28-45)

Rylan Schwartz, senior forward, Colorado College (17-31-48)

Steven Whitney, senior forward, Boston College (25-18-43)

Connor Hellebuyck, freshman goaltender, Massachusetts-Lowell (16-2-0, 1.49 GAA, .944 SV%, 4 SO)

Ryan McKay, freshman goaltender, Miami (12-5-2, 1.20 GAA, .954 SV%, 3 SO)

WCHA Final Five Preview: UND vs. Colorado College

UND and CC are quite familiar with each other, having already played four times this season. The teams split both weekend series, with UND needing some late game heroics on Saturday night in Colorado Springs to earn a 3-2 overtime victory over the Tigers.

Beginning on December 1st, Colorado College went just 6-11-4 to finish out the regular season. After losing the first playoff game at rival Denver, not many gave Scott Owens and his club much of a chance at advancing to the WCHA Final Five. But the Tigers rattled off 2-1 and 4-3 victories over the Pioneers to earn a berth in the last Final Five as we know it.

CC may be happy to be playing, yes, but not necessarily pleased to be facing North Dakota. After the January series against the Tigers in Grand Forks, UND hit a bit of a rough patch, earning just one point each against Minnesota and St. Cloud State. Those two weekends certainly kept them from hoisting the MacNaughton Cup, but the Green and White have been on a roll since then, going 8-3-2 on their way to St. Paul. Furthermore, UND gave up more than two goals only three times in that 13 game stretch, and all three of their losses were by a single goal.

And there is more on the Green and White side of the ledger in this matchup: Dave Hakstol’s crew has won eight consecutive Final Five games, and UND is 7-2-0 all-time against Colorado College in conference playoff games, including a spotless 4-0 record at the Final Five. Certainly, the smaller ice sheet (200×85) at Xcel Energy works in favor of North Dakota. UND plays on NHL ice in Grand Forks, and posted an 11-4-6 record at home this season and a 5-1-0 road record on the narrow surface for a combined record of 16-5-6 (.704) on NHL ice this season. Colorado College plays its home games on Olympic ice (200×100), and will have to adjust to a different style of game. Incidentally, of the six teams in the WCHA Final Five field, only UND plays on the narrow sheet.

Lastly, North Dakota is coming off its best performance of the season in Sunday’s decisive 6-0 Game 3 victory over Michigan Tech. UND got a solid 60 minute effort up and down the lineup, and if they bring that brand of hockey to the WCHA Final Five, they will hoist their fourth consecutive Broadmoor Trophy.

Both goaltenders are coming off of solid performances in last weekend’s first round action. Colorado College senior netminder Joe Howe notched 112 saves in the opening round, including a combined 78 saves (.951 save percentage) in Game 2 and Game 3 victories. North Dakota junior goaltender Clarke Saunders started Games 2 and 3 for UND, and despite taking the loss in Game 2, stopped 57 of 59 shots he faced against the Huskies.

Thanks to Jim Dahl’s excellent work here, we know that North Dakota will earn a bid to the NCAA tournament regardless of wins or losses at the Final Five this weekend. Colorado College, on the other hand, must win the tournament to claim the conference’s autobid and advance to the national tournament; an NCAA at-large bid is not within reach for the Tigers.

Colorado College Team Profile

Head Coach: Scott Owens (14th season at CC, 315-203-48, .599)
Pairwise Ranking: 25th
National Ranking: NR
This Season: 16-18-5 overall, 11-13-4 WCHA (8th)
Last Season: 18-16-2 overall, 15-12-1 WCHA (5th)
Team Offense: 3.21 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 3.46 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 17.4% (24 of 138)
Penalty Kill: 78.2% (115 of 147)

Key Players: Senior F Rylan Schwartz (17-31-48), Senior F William Rapuzzi (15-19-34), Junior F Alexander Krushelnyski (14-26-40), Senior D Mike Boivin (14-14-28), Junior D Eamonn McDermott (3-19-22), Senior G Joe Howe (12-11-4, 3.09 GAA, .912 SV%, 1 SO)

North Dakota Team Profile

Head Coach: Dave Hakstol (9th season at UND, 234-117-37, .651)
Pairwise Ranking: t-6th
National Ranking: #6
This Season: 21-11-7 overall, 14-7-7 WCHA (3rd)
Last Season: 26-13-3 overall (NCAA West Regional Finalist), 16-11-1 WCHA (4th)

Team Offense: 3.31 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.41 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 21.3% (32 of 150)
Penalty Kill: 83.8% (119 of 142)

Key Players: Senior F Corban Knight (15-33-48), Senior F Danny Kristo (24-26-50), Sophomore F Mark MacMillan (13-12-25), Freshman F Rocco Grimaldi (13-21-34), Junior D Derek Forbort (4-11-15), Junior D Dillon Simpson (5-19-24), Junior G Clarke Saunders (13-7-4, 2.20 GAA, .920 SV%, 2 SO)

By The Numbers

Last Meeting: January 12, 2013 (Grand Forks, ND). North Dakota forward Mitch MacMillan, who was eligible in his first WCHA series after transferring from St. Cloud State, notched a goal and assist in leading to a 5-3 victory over visiting Colorado College. The Tigers, who took Friday’s opener by a score of 4-3, did not have an answer for offensive juggernaut Dan “Jimmer” Senkbeil, who potted the game-winner for his first career goal.

Last Meeting in St. Paul: March 18, 2011. UND Hobey Baker hopeful Matt Frattin broke a 3-3 tie late in the third period with his 34th goal of the season, and the Green and White advanced to the WCHA Final Five championship game. North Dakota forward Brock Nelson was ejected from the game early in the third period for checking from behind, but UND’s Brad Malone scored shorthanded to regain the momentum. The Tigers had a late power play, but couldn’t get a fourth goal past Aaron Dell.

Most Important Meeting: March 27, 1997. UND defeated Colorado College, 6-2, in the Frozen Four Semifinals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Two nights later, North Dakota downed Boston University, 6-4, to claim its sixth NCAA Championship. North Dakota and Colorado College also met in the 2001 East Regional (Worcester, Mass.), with UND prevailing, 4-1.

All-time Series: UND leads the all-time series, 139-78-10 (.634), including an 8-1 (.889) mark on neutral ice, a 7-2 (.778) record in WCHA playoff games, and a perfect 4-0 mark at the WCHA Final Five. The teams first met in 1948.

Last Ten: North Dakota is 7-3-0 (.700) in the last ten meetings between the teams. UND has only outscored CC 40-32 over the last ten games, with five of UND’s seven victories coming by a single goal.

Game News and Notes

This game boasts the top two active NCAA career scoring leaders in UND’s Danny Kristo (159) and CC’s Rylan Schwartz (154). Kristo’s linemate, senior forward Corban Knight, is not far behind with 145 career points. North Dakota’s five senior skaters have combined for 153 points, while Colorado College’s six seniors have amassed 162 points. UND is 32-9 in WCHA playoff games under Dave Hakstol, including a 15-5 record at the Final Five.

The Prediction

I hear more people talking about UND vs. Minnesota than UND vs. Colorado College, but the players and coaching staffs will be ready for Thursday’s quarterfinal. The Tigers have a bit more to play for, but a large, vocal North Dakota crowd will create yet another “road home game” for the Green and White. The first goal will be key, particularly if CC can get one early and take the fans out of the equation. As it is, though, North Dakota is just too much to handle. UND 4-2.

Bonus Prediction

In the other Thursday semifinal, it’s UW against MSU-Mankato. The Mavericks are a virtual lock for the NCAA’s, while the Badgers need to win at least two games at the Final Five to have a chanceat playing next weekend. I think Wisconsin will take this one in a mild upset. UW 3-2.