Month: March 2013

North Dakota seemingly a lock for NCAAs

At a first pass, here’s what I see as the remaining NCAA hockey tournament possibilities:

Secured a bid: Quinnipiac, Minnesota, Miami, Boston College, Mass.-Lowell, North Dakota, New Hampshire

Can get an at-large bid: Yale, Notre Dame, Mankato, Niagara, St. Cloud, Denver, Western Michigan, Union, Wisconsin, Providence, Boston University, Rensselaer, Alaska (.01% chance), Robert Morris

Needs to win the conference tournament: Brown, Colorado College, Ohio St, Michigan, Connecticut, Canisius, Mercyhurst

Fire up the You are the committee and Pairwise predictor calculators and let me know if I missed anything, or let me know if there are particular scenarios you’d like explained. I’ll post another article later that gives some team-by-team analysis.

Updated — more detail on a per-win basis

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 49.8%
#4 33.8%
#5 13.1%
#6 3.1%
#7 0.2%
#8 0.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3 31.0% 42.4% 94.8%
#4 42.9% 44.1% 5.2%
#5 20.3% 11.6%  
#6 5.4% 1.8%  
#7 0.4% 0.1%  
#8 0.0%    
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Boston College #3 17.6%
#4 17.5%
#5 22.5%
#6 20.8%
#7 13.0%
#8 5.5%
#9 2.0%
#10 0.8%
#11 0.3%
#12 0.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     70.6%
#4 10.7% 20.5% 27.9%
#5 23.6% 41.3% 1.5%
#6 27.5% 28.3%  
#7 21.6% 8.6%  
#8 10.4% 1.3%  
#9 4.0% 0.0%  
#10 1.6%    
#11 0.6%    
#12 0.1%    
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Yale #3 2.1%
#4 13.7%
#5 15.1%
#6 13.6%
#7 13.0%
#8 10.2%
#9 6.2%
#10 4.2%
#11 3.8%
#12 5.1%
#13 6.8%
#14 5.1%
#15 1.0%
#16 0.1%
#17 0.0%
#18 0.0%
Tournament invites: 96.9%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     8.2%
#4   2.3% 51.1%
#5 1.2% 16.6% 31.1%
#6 3.1% 25.2% 8.3%
#7 6.3% 25.6% 1.2%
#8 8.3% 17.8%  
#9 8.6% 7.9%  
#10 8.2% 3.5%  
#11 10.1% 1.1%  
#12 15.1% 0.1%  
#13 20.5%    
#14 15.2%    
#15 2.9%    
#16 0.4%    
#17 0.1%    
#18 0.0%    
Tournament invites: 90.7% 100.0% 100.0%
Mass.-Lowell #3 18.2%
#4 8.2%
#5 16.1%
#6 24.4%
#7 19.4%
#8 9.7%
#9 3.3%
#10 0.7%
#11 0.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3   1.7% 71.3%
#4 0.4% 12.9% 19.0%
#5 10.3% 34.6% 9.4%
#6 31.5% 34.2% 0.4%
#7 32.2% 13.2%  
#8 18.1% 2.6%  
#9 6.1% 0.7%  
#10 1.4% 0.1%  
#11 0.1%    
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UND #3 2.4%
#4 6.5%
#5 9.5%
#6 13.4%
#7 22.4%
#8 18.9%
#9 15.7%
#10 9.0%
#11 2.2%
#12 0.1%
Tournament invites: 100.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2 Win 3
#3       19.0%
#4     5.7% 46.3%
#5 2.4% 6.9% 19.3% 32.8%
#6 7.5% 23.1% 28.9% 1.9%
#7 22.3% 31.8% 26.4%  
#8 22.8% 23.3% 13.3%  
#9 25.0% 10.4% 4.9%  
#10 15.9% 3.6% 1.2%  
#11 3.9% 0.9% 0.2%  
#12 0.1% 0.0%    
Tournament invites: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
New Hampshire #5 0.2%
#6 3.9%
#7 12.4%
#8 34.1%
#9 35.7%
#10 11.8%
#11 1.9%
#12 0.1%
#13 0.0%
Tournament invites: 100.0%		 n/a
Notre Dame #3 4.6%
#4 6.3%
#5 2.7%
#6 1.3%
#7 1.9%
#8 2.8%
#9 7.0%
#10 17.6%
#11 13.6%
#12 6.3%
#13 9.3%
#14 6.5%
#15 9.7%
#16 7.9%
#17 2.2%
#18 0.3%
#19 0.0%
Tournament invites: 81.8%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     18.3%
#4   0.1% 25.2%
#5   1.3% 9.4%
#6   2.1% 3.2%
#7 0.0% 6.5% 1.2%
#8 0.5% 9.3% 1.1%
#9 4.5% 13.9% 5.0%
#10 16.4% 13.2% 24.4%
#11 19.3% 4.3% 11.5%
#12 7.9% 8.7% 0.8%
#13 2.5% 32.2% 0.0%
#14 8.9% 8.1%  
#15 19.2% 0.5%  
#16 15.7% 0.0%  
#17 4.4%    
#18 0.7%    
#19 0.0%    
Tournament invites: 64.0% 99.0% 100.0%
Mankato #3 5.2%
#4 5.3%
#5 3.9%
#6 4.5%
#7 6.0%
#8 9.1%
#9 16.6%
#10 23.5%
#11 17.5%
#12 7.2%
#13 1.1%
#14 0.1%
Tournament invites: 99.7%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2 Win 3
#3       41.7%
#4   0.2% 4.8% 37.1%
#5 0.0% 1.1% 12.5% 16.4%
#6 0.2% 3.9% 22.8% 4.7%
#7 1.3% 9.3% 24.4%  
#8 6.4% 14.9% 17.0%  
#9 19.1% 22.2% 12.4%  
#10 32.2% 27.1% 5.2%  
#11 26.1% 17.3% 0.8%  
#12 12.3% 4.1%    
#13 2.2%      
#14 0.2%      
Tournament invites: 99.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Niagara #4 3.9%
#5 8.5%
#6 8.0%
#7 6.1%
#8 4.7%
#9 4.7%
#10 7.4%
#11 14.3%
#12 21.7%
#13 18.4%
#14 2.2%
#15 0.1%
Tournament invites: 95.9%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#4     15.6%
#5   0.4% 33.6%
#6   3.1% 28.7%
#7   8.8% 15.7%
#8 0.0% 13.5% 5.2%
#9 0.1% 17.7% 0.9%
#10 2.3% 25.0% 0.1%
#11 16.7% 23.7%  
#12 39.8% 7.3%  
#13 36.5% 0.5%  
#14 4.4%    
#15 0.2%    
Tournament invites: 91.9% 99.9% 100.0%
SCSU #3 0.1%
#4 4.8%
#5 8.5%
#6 7.0%
#7 5.5%
#8 4.7%
#9 4.6%
#10 7.4%
#11 10.3%
#12 19.6%
#13 21.0%
#14 6.0%
#15 0.6%
Tournament invites: 94.1%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#3     0.4%
#4     19.3%
#5   0.3% 33.6%
#6   1.8% 26.3%
#7   7.6% 14.4%
#8   14.2% 4.8%
#9 0.1% 17.0% 1.0%
#10 1.8% 25.9% 0.1%
#11 9.4% 22.3%  
#12 33.9% 10.4%  
#13 41.7% 0.5%  
#14 11.9%    
#15 1.1%    
Tournament invites: 88.5% 99.6% 100.0%
Denver #7 0.0%
#8 0.3%
#9 4.2%
#10 16.9%
#11 32.1%
#12 31.2%
#13 14.9%
#14 0.3%
#15 0.0%
Tournament invites: 98.0%		 n/a
Western Michigan #13 13.5%
#14 55.7%
#15 26.5%
#16 4.2%
#17 0.1%
#18 0.0%
Tournament invites: 56.5%		 n/a
Union #8 0.0%
#9 0.1%
#10 0.5%
#11 2.7%
#12 7.2%
#13 9.5%
#14 12.2%
#15 28.6%
#16 24.4%
#17 6.5%
#18 4.3%
#19 2.6%
#20 1.2%
#21 0.2%
#22 0.0%
Tournament invites: 41.5%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#8     0.0%
#9     0.2%
#10     2.0%
#11     10.9%
#12     28.8%
#13   0.6% 37.1%
#14 5.0% 12.7% 21.0%
#15 24.1% 49.3%  
#16 29.0% 35.2%  
#17 16.9% 2.1%  
#18 12.8%    
#19 7.7%    
#20 3.6%    
#21 0.6%    
#22 0.1%    
Tournament invites: 15.5% 27.2% 100.0%
UW #10 0.2%
#11 1.2%
#12 1.6%
#13 2.4%
#14 4.7%
#15 3.7%
#16 5.1%
#17 11.8%
#18 21.1%
#19 20.0%
#20 14.6%
#21 9.7%
#22 3.7%
#23 0.2%
Tournament invites: 13.3%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2 Win 3
#10       1.5%
#11       9.6%
#12       12.7%
#13       19.4%
#14     2.0% 35.6%
#15     12.2% 17.2%
#16   0.1% 36.9% 4.0%
#17 7.5% 18.4% 27.8%  
#18 19.9% 36.5% 16.0%  
#19 24.8% 28.2% 4.7%  
#20 22.4% 13.3% 0.3%  
#21 17.7% 3.4%    
#22 7.2% 0.1%    
#23 0.4%      
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 6.6% 100.0%
Providence #13 0.0%
#14 0.9%
#15 7.3%
#16 9.2%
#17 8.4%
#18 10.8%
#19 14.2%
#20 15.2%
#21 12.0%
#22 8.8%
#23 7.7%
#24 4.0%
#25 1.3%
#26 0.1%
Tournament invites: 25.1%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#13     0.2%
#14     3.7%
#15     29.3%
#16   1.9% 35.0%
#17 0.2% 11.8% 21.3%
#18 4.4% 27.0% 7.6%
#19 11.5% 31.7% 2.1%
#20 20.2% 19.3% 0.8%
#21 20.4% 7.4% 0.0%
#22 17.2% 0.8%  
#23 15.4% 0.0%  
#24 7.9%    
#25 2.7%    
#26 0.1%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.2% 100.0%
Boston University #12 0.0%
#13 2.7%
#14 4.5%
#15 12.2%
#16 8.8%
#17 9.3%
#18 15.1%
#19 22.8%
#20 15.6%
#21 7.0%
#22 1.8%
#23 0.1%
Tournament invites: 25.8%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#12     0.0%
#13     11.0%
#14   0.3% 17.9%
#15   2.4% 46.3%
#16   15.9% 19.3%
#17 1.0% 30.4% 4.7%
#18 15.1% 29.3% 0.9%
#19 36.7% 17.7%  
#20 29.4% 3.5%  
#21 13.9% 0.3%  
#22 3.7% 0.1%  
#23 0.3%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 3.1% 100.0%
Rensselaer #13 0.3%
#14 1.8%
#15 9.8%
#16 31.2%
#17 31.9%
#18 17.3%
#19 6.0%
#20 1.5%
#21 0.2%
Tournament invites: 8.2%		 n/a
Alaska #16 0.3%
#17 2.6%
#18 7.2%
#19 12.1%
#20 14.3%
#21 13.7%
#22 13.5%
#23 15.1%
#24 13.3%
#25 6.5%
#26 1.3%
#27 0.1%
Tournament invites: < 1%		 n/a
Cornell #18 0.2%
#19 2.1%
#20 3.8%
#21 5.4%
#22 11.3%
#23 23.5%
#24 29.3%
#25 19.6%
#26 4.5%
#27 0.3%
Tournament invites: 0.0%		 n/a
Brown #16 0.2%
#17 2.4%
#18 6.4%
#19 10.5%
#20 17.4%
#21 20.4%
#22 15.4%
#23 6.4%
#24 6.3%
#25 6.9%
#26 5.8%
#27 1.7%
#28 0.2%
#29 0.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#16     0.6%
#17     9.6%
#18   0.5% 24.7%
#19 0.3% 7.0% 30.0%
#20 5.0% 24.7% 21.9%
#21 10.9% 33.4% 11.3%
#22 12.1% 26.1% 1.9%
#23 12.5% 5.2%  
#24 15.4% 2.9%  
#25 20.6% 0.1%  
#26 17.5%    
#27 5.0%    
#28 0.5%    
#29 0.1%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Dartmouth #18 0.2%
#19 2.2%
#20 8.8%
#21 20.6%
#22 31.3%
#23 24.5%
#24 10.8%
#25 1.7%
Tournament invites: 0.0%		 n/a
Robert Morris #14 0.0%
#15 0.6%
#16 8.6%
#17 24.4%
#18 14.4%
#19 2.9%
#20 1.7%
#21 3.1%
#22 5.1%
#23 7.6%
#24 14.3%
#25 13.1%
#26 3.8%
#27 0.5%
Tournament invites: 0.7%		 n/a
CC #18 0.2%
#19 0.8%
#20 1.6%
#21 2.6%
#22 3.4%
#23 5.1%
#24 7.1%
#25 13.8%
#26 16.4%
#27 16.5%
#28 22.0%
#29 8.0%
#30 2.2%
#31 0.5%
#32 0.0%
Tournament invites: 12.5%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2 Win 3
#18       1.9%
#19       6.4%
#20       12.6%
#21     1.5% 19.4%
#22     6.6% 20.2%
#23   1.1% 13.9% 24.5%
#24   6.4% 30.3% 13.4%
#25 0.8% 34.7% 36.0% 1.4%
#26 5.9% 47.7% 11.7% 0.1%
#27 28.0% 10.1%    
#28 44.0%      
#29 16.0%      
#30 4.4%      
#31 0.9%      
#32 0.0%      
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Ohio State #17 0.5%
#18 2.4%
#19 3.7%
#20 4.4%
#21 4.8%
#22 5.1%
#23 6.4%
#24 4.4%
#25 4.3%
#26 6.4%
#27 6.5%
#28 19.7%
#29 21.2%
#30 3.3%
#31 6.2%
#32 0.7%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#17     2.2%
#18     9.7%
#19   0.0% 14.9%
#20   0.2% 17.3%
#21   1.8% 17.6%
#22   6.0% 14.6%
#23   12.3% 13.2%
#24   12.5% 4.9%
#25   12.3% 4.8%
#26 0.2% 24.5% 0.9%
#27 2.1% 21.8%  
#28 35.4% 8.0%  
#29 42.1% 0.5%  
#30 6.5%    
#31 12.3%    
#32 1.4%    
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Ferris State #25 8.5%
#26 26.5%
#27 36.1%
#28 22.8%
#29 5.7%
#30 0.4%
Tournament invites: 0.0%		 n/a
St. Lawrence #24 0.0%
#25 5.3%
#26 21.8%
#27 32.1%
#28 25.2%
#29 12.0%
#30 2.8%
#31 0.7%
Tournament invites: 0.0%		 n/a
Nebraska-Omaha #27 0.0%
#28 0.0%
#29 20.9%
#30 38.3%
#31 26.6%
#32 14.2%
Tournament invites: 0.0%		 n/a
Michigan #21 0.0%
#22 0.3%
#23 2.0%
#24 6.7%
#25 11.5%
#26 4.7%
#27 3.2%
#28 8.1%
#29 10.9%
#30 2.1%
#31 1.6%
#32 0.7%
Non-TUC 48.2%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#21     0.2%
#22     1.1%
#23     8.0%
#24     26.6%
#25     46.0%
#26   1.1% 17.6%
#27   12.3% 0.5%
#28   32.5%  
#29   43.5%  
#30   8.4%  
#31 2.3% 1.9%  
#32 1.2% 0.3%  
Non-TUC 96.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Connecticut #21 0.1%
#22 0.3%
#23 1.4%
#24 4.0%
#25 7.5%
#26 8.8%
#27 2.9%
#28 0.0%
#29 7.0%
#30 8.3%
#31 5.7%
#32 4.0%
Non-TUC 49.9%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#21     0.4%
#22     1.3%
#23     5.6%
#24     16.0%
#25     29.9%
#26     35.2%
#27     11.5%
#28   0.1%  
#29   28.0%  
#30   33.2%  
#31 0.0% 22.9%  
#32 0.1% 15.9%  
Non-TUC 99.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Holy Cross #26 0.0%
#27 0.2%
#28 1.9%
#29 14.3%
#30 42.7%
#31 34.9%
#32 6.0%
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 #32 0.0%
Non-TUC 100.0%
Tournament invites: 25.0%
PWR Win 0 Win 1 Win 2
#32     0.0%
Non-TUC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Tournament invites: 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Methodology

Unlike the regular season forecasts which are based on monte carlo simulations, the above tables were produced by exhaustively searching all remaining possible outcomes, so the table should be complete. The probabilities presented in the forecasts are the share of remaining possible outcomes in which that event occurs. The predictions about the likelihood of a team making the NCAA tournament assume that the PWR rankings will perfectly mimic the NCAA selection process, as they have in the past, and that any ties will be broken by RPI.

Resources

WCHA First Round Playoff Preview: UND vs. Michigan Tech

Last season was Mel Pearson’s first as head coach of the Michigan Tech Huskies, and by all accounts, his rookie campaign was a success. Pearson brought energy, enthusiasm, and a new brand of hockey to Houghton, and his team responded with a 6-2-1 start. MTU ended the season by dispatching Colorado College in two games to join its band at the WCHA Final Five for the first time since 2007.

The year before Pearson arrived at MacInnes Ice Arena, the Huskies won four games (4-30-4). Last season, Michigan Tech posted a respectable 16-19-4 record and earned the eighth spot in the league standings, just two points out of the final home ice spot held by St. Cloud State. MTU has never hosted the first round of the WCHA playoffs under the current format. Interestingly enough, either North Dakota or the University of Denver has ended the Huskies’ year each of the past five seasons

UND fans may not recognize this year’s version of the Huskies, as Brett Olson (93 points in 127 career games) and Jordan Baker (82 points in 146 games) have both graduated after seemingly playing at MTU forever. Michigan Tech is very young up front, as their top five scoring forwards are first- or second-year players. Leading the charge is freshman forward Alex Petan (15-18-33), who was recently named to the 2012-13 WCHA All-Rookie team along with UND forward Rocco Grimaldi (13-18-31).

North Dakota and the Huskies only met twice this season for a pair of league games at MTU. UND dispatched Michigan Tech 6-1 and 4-1, and that sweep left Mel Pearson’s squad sitting at 4-10-3 overall. Since that weekend, however, MTU has gone 8-8-1, outscoring opponents 57-41 over their last 17 games. That stretch includes wins over Michigan, Western Michigan, Nebraska-Omaha, St. Cloud State, and Colorado College.

After this season, it is unclear whether North Dakota and Michigan Tech will continue their storied rivalry. UND will move to the National Collegiate Hockey Conference, while MTU will remain in the WCHA and maintain ownership of the historic MacNaughton Cup.

Michigan Tech Team Profile

Head Coach: Mel Pearson (2nd season at MTU, 28-37-8, .438)
Pairwise Ranking: NR
National Ranking: NR
This Season: 12-18-4 overall, 8-16-4 WCHA (10th)
Last Season: 16-9-4 overall, 11-13-4 WCHA (8th)

Team Offense: 3.00 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 3.06 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 21.6% (29 of 134)
Penalty Kill: 80.6% (116 of 144)

Key Players: Freshman F Alex Petan (15-18-33), Sophomore F Blake Pietila (14-9-23), Sophomore F David Johnstone (10-19-29), Senior D Steven Seigo (6-11-17), Junior D Brad Stebner (1-8-9), Freshman G Pheonix Copley (7-14-1, 3.19 GAA, .899 SV%, 3 SO)

North Dakota Team Profile

Head Coach: Dave Hakstol (9th season at UND, 232-116-37, .651)
Pairwise Ranking: t-5th
National Ranking: #4
This Season: 19-10-7 overall, 14-7-7 WCHA (3rd)
Last Season: 26-13-3 overall (NCAA West Regional Finalist), 16-11-1 WCHA (4th)

Team Offense: 3.25 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.47 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 21.4% (30 of 140)
Penalty Kill: 83.5% (111 of 133)

Key Players: Senior F Corban Knight (14-31-45), Senior F Danny Kristo (21-24-45), Sophomore F Mark MacMillan (13-12-25), Freshman F Rocco Grimaldi (13-18-31), Junior D Derek Forbort (4-9-13), Sophomore D Dillon Simpson (3-18-21), Junior G Clarke Saunders (12-6-4, 2.30 GAA, .915 SV%, 2 SO)

By The Numbers

Last meeting: December 15, 2012 (Houghton, MI). North Dakota closed out the homestanding Huskies 4-1 after taking the opener by a 6-1 score. UND forwards Danny Kristo and Corban Knight each had six point weekends, while blueliner Joe Gleason added a goal and three assists for the Green and White.

Last meeting in Grand Forks: February 18, 2012. The two squads had to settle for a 1-1 tie one night after North Dakota won the opener 4-2. Michigan Tech’s Jordan Baker scored a lucky goal off his chest midway through the third period that gave the Huskies one point. MTU rang three shots off the post in the opening frame, while UND forward Corban Knight potted the lone goal for the Green and White early in the third period.

Most Important Meeting: The Sioux and Huskies have never met in the NCAA tournament, so I will go with the most important meeting that never was: in 1965, the Sioux lost to Boston College, 4-3, one game short of the national championship game, where they would have faced the Michigan Tech Huskies, who won the second of their three titles by defeating the Eagles. UND settled for third place that season, downing Brown University, 9-5. North Dakota went 13-3-0 in the regular season in 1964-65, with two of those three losses coming at the hands of Michigan Tech.

All-time Series: UND leads the all-time series, 147-93-10 (.608), including a dominating 82-33-5 (.704) record in games played in Grand Forks. The teams first met in 1948.

Last Ten: North Dakota is 9-0-1 (.950) in the last ten meetings between the schools and undefeated in the last 16 (14-0-2). The Green and White have outscored the Huskies 51-12 in the last ten games. The last time Michigan Tech defeated UND was in the first round of the WCHA playoffs in March 2008 (Grand Forks, ND). MTU took the middle game of the three-game series, but North Dakota came back to win on Sunday night to advance to the Final Five.

Game News and Notes

In his coaching career, UND head coach Dave Hakstol is 25-5-2 (.813) against Michigan Tech and 30-8 (.789) in the WCHA playoffs. Michigan Tech is undefeated in overtime games this year (3-0-4), while the Green and White suffered their first loss in the extra session last Saturday night in Mankato (2-1-7). UND is trying to advance to its 11th consecutive Final Five, a mark that would tie Minnesota (1999-2009) for the longest streak in league history. Coming in to this weekend’s series, these two storied programs have faced off 250 times.

The Prediction

This is a familiar sight to UND fans, as this is the fourth time in the past six seasons that North Dakota will host Michigan Tech in the first round of the WCHA playoffs. In its last six first-round playoff series, UND has gone 6-0 on Friday nights by a combined score of 32-4. Over the past six Saturdays (when trying to end a team’s season), North Dakota has won only four of six, with three of those victories by a single goal. This weekend’s series will follow that same formula, with the Green and White surviving a nail-biter on Saturday to punch their ticket to the WCHA Final Five. UND 5-2, 3-2.

My 2012-13 All-WCHA Ballot

I took part in the 2nd Annual Blogger/Website All-WCHA poll, and I thought I would post my picks here as well. Keep in mind that I only took conference statistics into consideration as I made my selections.

All-WCHA Rookie Team:
F – Alex Petan (MTU) 11-18-29
F – Tony Cameranesi (UMD) 11-17-28
F – Rocco Grimaldi (UND) 10-16-26
D – Andy Welinski (UMD) 3-12-15
D – Nolan Zajac (DU) 4-10-14
G – Stephon Williams (MSUM) 15-9-1, 1.93 GAA, .927 SV%, 3 SO

All-WCHA Third Team:
F – Rylan Schwartz (Sr, CC) 12-23-35
F – Nick Bjugstad (Jr, MN) 15-8-23
F – Alexander Krushelneski (Jr, CC) 11-21-32
D – Andrew Prochno (So, SCSU) 3-19-22
D – Andrej Sustr (Jr, UNO) 7-11-18
G – Adam Wilcox (Fr, MN) 16-6-5, 2.13 GAA, .914 SV%, 1 SO

All-WCHA Second Team
F – Corban Knight (Sr, UND) 12-23-35
F – Drew LeBlanc (Sr, SCSU) 10-25-35
F – Josh Archibald (So, UNO) 18-15-33
D – Mike Boivin (Sr, CC) 13-10-23
D – Joey LaLeggia (So, DU) 10-13-23
G – Landon Peterson (So, UW) 5-2-3, 2.01 GAA, .928 SV%

All-WCHA First Team
F – Ryan Walters (Jr, UNO) 16-24-40
F – Danny Kristo (Sr, UND) 17-20-37
F – Erik Haula (Jr, MN) 13-24-37
D – Nate Schmidt (Jr, MN) 7-19-26
D – Nick Jensen (Jr, SCSU) 4-19-23
G – Stephon Williams (Fr, MSUM) 15-9-1, 1.93 GAA, .927 SV%, 3 SO

WCHA Coach of the Year – Mike Hastings, MSUM
WCHA Rookie of the Year – Stephon Williams, G, MSUM
WCHA Defensive Player of the Year – Nate Schmidt, D, MN
WCHA Player of the Year – Ryan Walters, F, UNO

Best of three weekend Pairwise possibilities

This is the last week we look at single week ranking probabilities, after this the “You are the Committee” calculators will go live and we’ll give you the rundown on all remaining possible outcomes.

It’s an interesting week, with a lot of teams’ fortunes still at play.

While the first three (#1 Quinnipiac, #2 Minnesota, and #3 Miami) in the Pairwise Rankings are reasonably secure, it starts to get interesting at #4 Mass.-Lowell. The Riverhawks are likely to stay #4-5 if they emerge from the best of 3, but plummet if they get eliminated.

The same holds true for #5 North Dakota, #6 Denver, and #7 Boston College.

#8 New Hampshire is the first team with serious upside potential. It has a decent RPI and TUC record and is playing a fellow team under consideration, Providence. Most surprisingly, the Wildcats don’t drop much this weekend if they get eliminated (particularly if they win one).

#9 Mankato, #10 Western Michigan, #11 Yale, #12 St Cloud St, and #13 Niagara all have the opportunity to climb with success, or fall to the bubble if eliminated.

#14 Rensselaer is the highest ranked team that could fall definitively below the bubble if swept.

#15 Notre Dame, #16 Union, and #17 Boston University can all push themselves onto the bubble with success this weekend.

#18 Wisconsin can put itself into a good position but is unlikely to quite climb onto the bubble even with a sweep this weekend.

#22 Alaska is the highest ranked team not playing this weekend. Though incredibly unlikely (<1% chance), they could mathematically still climb onto the bubble.

#25 Air Force is the cutoff beyond which even active teams don’t seem to be able to climb onto the bubble through this weekend’s performance alone.

If there’s anything else you’d like to know (e.g. what games are most important for a particular team, what are the chances for a team note listed here), just let me know in the comments!

Methodology

Each forecast is based on at least one million monte carlo simulations of the games in the described period. For each simulation, the PairWise Ranking (PWR) is calculated and the results tallied. The probabilities presented in the forecasts are the share of simulations in which a particular outcome occurred.

The outcome of each game in each simulation is determined by random draw, with the probability of victory for each team set by their relative KRACH ratings. So, if the simulation set included a contest between team A with KRACH 300 and team B with KRACH 100, team A will win the game in very close to 75% of the simulations. I don’t simulate ties or home ice advantage.

Resources

Final regular season PWR possibilities

#7 UND (Current PWR rankings) remains in the driver’s seat for its tournament hopes.

Its ranking remains anchored around 6-7 with a split, could rise a little with a sweep, or could fall a few spots if swept. The conference tournaments are annoyingly difficult to predict through, but a solid performance this weekend should put UND in position for an at large bid even, if they were to suffer an early exit from the conference tournament. A sweep could even (if all else goes well) vault UND into the top 4.

Games with the biggest impact on UND’s PWR
Result Number of
times		 Average increase
in UND’s
PWR
North Dakota over MSU-Mankato (2 of 2) 4.24
North Dakota over MSU-Mankato (1 of 2) 3.30
Providence over Mass.-Lowell (2 of 2) 0.81
Vermont over Boston College (2 of 2) 0.80
Wisconsin over St Cloud St (2 of 2) 0.75
Wisconsin over St Cloud St (1 of 2) 0.66
Vermont over Boston College (1 of 2) 0.60
Maine over New Hampshire (2 of 2) 0.57

Providence over Mass.-Lowell is UND’s most obvious chance to flip a comparison in its favor (UND’s current PWR comparisons). UND could easily take Mass.-Lowell on RPI if the River Hawks falter.

Boston College is a little harder to flip because UND already has RPI. Even a sweep of Mankato doesn’t quite give UND the TUC criterion, but gets them close enough (.5926 vs .6053) that a little movement around the TUC cliff could flip it.

While UND can overtake New Hampshire on RPI, that would just put the comparison in the same situation as that with BC. UND would fall just short on TUC (.5926 vs .5952), but a little movement on the TUC cliff could flip it.

Wisconsin over St. Cloud seems to matter defensively, if UND underperforms this weekend this would prevent St. Cloud from flipping the comparison.

St. Cloud St vs Wisconsin

This weekend’s matchup between #10 St. Cloud St and #20 Wisconsin has big PWR implications that could have big tournament implications.

St. Cloud can all but lock in a tournament berth with a sweep, or can put itself in danger of missing out if swept. Wisconsin has a lot to play for, with the possibility of rising to the bubble with a sweep.

Big movers

Overall movement looks to be relatively small this weekend. The most upside potential (that immediately seems to matter) is #22 Providence, which could find itself on the bubble with a sweep. The “look out below” award again goes to #19 Dartmouth, whose probable outcomes span a full 10 rankings if they get swept. An honorable mention for upside potential goes to #31 Colorado College, which has an outside chance of becoming relevant with a sweep over Michigan Tech (the Tigers’ probable outcomes again spanning an almost 10 ranking range if they sweep).

Methodology

Each forecast is based on at least one million monte carlo simulations of the games in the described period. For each simulation, the PairWise Ranking (PWR) is calculated and the results tallied. The probabilities presented in the forecasts are the share of simulations in which a particular outcome occurred.

The outcome of each game in each simulation is determined by random draw, with the probability of victory for each team set by their relative KRACH ratings. So, if the simulation set included a contest between team A with KRACH 300 and team B with KRACH 100, team A will win the game in very close to 75% of the simulations. I don’t simulate ties or home ice advantage.

Resources

Weekend Preview: UND vs. MSU-Mankato

After three consecutive disappointing seasons in Mankato, head coach Troy Jutting was replaced by Mike Hastings. The first year head coach has turned the Mavericks around, with 21 wins to his credit already (21-10-3). By comparison, Jutting only hit 20 wins once in his 12 seasons behind the MSU-M bench (20-11-10 in 2002-03, Jutting’s only NCAA tournament appearance), and lost 16 or more games in 11 of his 12 head coaching campaigns.

Last year, the Mavericks relied heavily on their rookie class, and those players are now flourishing as sophomores. Forwards Matt Leitner (15-25-40) and Jean-Paul Lafontaine (8-20-28) have been offensive catalysts, while fellow sophomore Zach Palmquist (5-16-21) has chipped in from the blue line.

By contrast, UND’s top scoring second year player is forward Mark MacMillan (12-12-24), while sophomore defenseman Nick Mattson has notched three goals and added 12 assists.

The biggest storyline in Mankato, however, might be the emergence of netminder Stephon Williams. The freshman goaltender from Fairbanks, Alaska spent two seasons in the USHL (Sioux Falls and Waterloo) before beginning his NCAA career, and Williams has taken the job away from senior Phil Cook. Cook has struggled in nine appearances this season (3-2-1, 3.49 GAA, .879 SV%), while Williams has ben nothing short of outstanding (18-8-2, 1.82 GAA, .930 SV%, 4 SO).

UND still has a goaltending battle on its hands, with freshman Zane Gothberg and junior transfer Clarke Saunders both playing well. Look for each to get a start this weekend in Mankato, with the sharper of the two getting the nod for the playoff run beginning next weekend.

Since December 1st, both teams have been in fine form. North Dakota has gone 12-4-5 over the past three months, outscoring opponents 73-49, while the Mavericks have posted an impressive 15-5-1 mark over the same time frame, owning the scoreboard by a 74-43 margin.

Dave Hakstol’s team has secured home ice for the first round of the WCHA playoffs and currently sits in 7th place in the Pairwise rankings, which mimic the NCAA tournament selection process. Based on the results of this weekend’s conference action, North Dakota could host Alaska-Anchorage, Bemidji State, Colorado College, Denver, Michigan Tech, Minnesota-Duluth, Nebraska-Omaha, or Wisconsin in the first round of the league playoffs next weekend. UND will host the first round of the conference playoffs for the 11th consecutive season, the longest active streak in the WCHA.

Mike Hastings’ squad sits in a tie for fourth place in the WCHA, and could end up at home or on the road next weekend, depending on the results of this series and other games around the league. Regardless of how the lconference playoffs turn out, the Mavericks appear to be in line for an NCAA tournament bid for the first time since 2002-03.

This is the first meeting between the schools during the 2012-13 campaign. The teams also played just two games last season, with North Dakota sweeping a pair from the Mavericks in Grand Forks. Beginning next season, UND will move to the NCHC while Mankato will remain in the new-look WCHA. It is unclear when the two schools will schedule games again or whether there is interest on either side in continuing the rivalry.

MSU-Mankato Team Profile

Head Coach: Mike Hastings (1st season at MSU-M, 21-10-3, .662)
Pairwise Ranking: t-8th
National Ranking: #10
This Season: 21-10-3 overall, 15-10-1 WCHA (t-4th)
Last Season: 12-24-2 overall, 8-18-2 WCHA (11th)

Team Offense: 3.29 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.26 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 23.5% (38 of 162)
Penalty Kill: 82.5% (113 of 137)

Key Players: Sophomore F Matt Leitner (15-25-40), Senior F Eriah Hayes (18-13-31), Sophomore F Jean-Paul Lafontaine (8-20-28), Junior F Zach Lehrke (8-15-23), Sophomore D Zach Palmquist (5-16-21), Junior D Josh Nelson (5-8-13), Freshman G Stephon Williams (18-8-2, 1.82 GAA, .930 SV%, 4 SO)

North Dakota Team Profile

Head Coach: Dave Hakstol (9th season at UND, 231-115-37, .651)
Pairwise Ranking: 7th
National Ranking: #5
This Season: 18-9-7 overall, 13-6-7 WCHA (t-2nd)
Last Season: 26-13-3 overall (NCAA West Regional Finalist), 16-11-1 WCHA (4th)

Team Offense: 3.29 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.47 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 22.1% (30 of 136)
Penalty Kill: 83.3% (105 of 126)

Key Players: Senior F Corban Knight (14-30-44), Senior F Danny Kristo (20-24-44), Sophomore F Mark MacMillan (12-12-24), Freshman F Rocco Grimaldi (12-17-29), Junior D Derek Forbort (4-9-13), Sophomore D Dillon Simpson (3-17-20), Junior G Clarke Saunders (12-6-4, 2.30 GAA, .915 SV%, 2 SO)

By The Numbers

Last Meeting: March 3, 2012 (Grand Forks, ND). Senior goaltender Brad Eidsness pitched a 29 save shutout on Senior Night and Brock Nelson added an empty-netter with 90 seconds to play as UND rolled the Mavericks 3-0. North Dakota won Friday’s opener 4-2 on the strength of a three goal first period.

Last Meeting in Mankato: December 12, 2010. In a rare Sunday afternoon contest, UND again rallied from an early deficit to secure the road victory, 4-2. Down one goal late in the game, the Mavericks couldn’t capitalize on nearly two minutes of 5 on 3 play, and North Dakota forward Evan Trupp iced the contest with an empty-netter in the final minute. On Friday night, the Green and White scored three 3rd period goals in under three minutes to come back and win 4-3.

All-time Series: UND leads the all-time series, 37-10-7 (.750), including a 14-4-4 (.727) record in games played in Mankato.

Last ten: North Dakota has a sparkling 9-1-0 record in the last ten contests, and has lost just once in the last 20 meetings (18-1-1) between the schools.

Game News and Notes

UND head coach Dave Hakstol is 22-3-2 (.852) against the Mavericks in his career. This weekend’s games will be played on an Olympic sheet of ice at the Verizon Wireless Center (capacity 4,832). North Dakota is just 3-4-1 on the wider ice surface this season (at Alaska Goal Rush tournament, St. Cloud State, Colorado College, and Minnesota). MSU-Mankato is 10-5-1 at home this year.

The Prediction

I really can’t see either team taking more than two points from this series. If the games were in Grand Forks, the edge would go to the Green and White, but Mankato is fast and skilled and will take UND by surprise in game one. North Dakota will silence the cowbells and take the series finale on Saturday night. MSUM 4-2, UND 4-2.

Weekend Preview: UND vs. Bemidji State

Last season, North Dakota finished out the WCHA regular season with two victories over Minnesota State-Mankato before dispatching Bemidji State at home in the first round of the league playoffs.

Fast forward one year, and it’s much the same. UND hasn’t played the Beavers in 2012-13, but will host Tom Serratore’s squad for a pair before traveling to Mankato to end the regular season. North Dakota looks to be in line to host the first round of the WCHA playoffs, and may likely host Bemidji at the Ralph in two weeks time.

There is a distinct difference between the top nine teams in the league and the bottom three, and wins this weekend and next would almost guarantee that UND would host Bemidji State, Michigan Tech, or Alaska-Anchorage with a trip to the WCHA Final Five on the line.

Bemidji State is in a freefall, winning only one game since December 15th (1-9-4) and being outscored 44-23 in that span. By contrast, North Dakota is 11-4-4 since December 1st, outscoring opponents 67-45.

For the most part, Dave Hakstol has his line combinations set heading into the playoffs. The question mark will be between the pipes, and these next two weekends will determine whether junior Clarke Saunders or freshman Zane Gothberg will take the reins for a run to the Frozen Four.

Bemidji State Team Profile

Head Coach: Tom Serratore (12th season at BSU, 201-181-48 .523)
Pairwise Ranking: NR
National Rankings: NR/NR
This Season: 6-17-7 overal, 5-13-6 WCHA (t-10th)
Last Season: 17-18-3 overall, 11-14-3 WCHA (9th)

Team Offense: 2.07 goals scored/game
Team Defense: 2.97 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 18.9% (17 of 90)
Penalty Kill: 81.6% (93 of 114)

Key Players: Senior F Jordan George (8-9-17), Senior F Brance Orban (8-12-20), Senior F Aaron McLeod (11-5-16), Sophomore D Matt Prapavessis (0-9-9), Senior D Brady Wacker (3-5-8), Sophomore G Andrew Walsh (5-10-5, 2.60 GAA, .917 SV%, 1 SO)

North Dakota Team Profile

Head Coach: Dave Hakstol (9th season at UND, 230-115-36, .651)
Pairwise Ranking: t-5th
National Ranking: #6
This Season: 17-9-6 overall, 12-6-6 WCHA (t-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: 2.50 goals allowed/game
Power Play: 22.0% (29 of 132)
Penalty Kill: 82.9% (102 of 123)

Key Players: Senior F Corban Knight (14-29-43), Senior F Danny Kristo (20-23-43), Sophomore F Mark MacMillan (10-11-21), Freshman F Rocco Grimaldi (12-15-27), Junior D Derek Forbort (4-9-13), Sophomore D Dillon Simpson (3-17-20), Junior G Clarke Saunders (11-6-4, 2.31 GAA, .916 SV%, 2 SO)

By The Numbers

Last Meeting: March 10, 2012 (Grand Forks, ND). Proving the old adage that it’s never easy to end an opponent’s season, North Dakota had to withstand a late Bemidji State rally to prevail 4-3 and sweep the WCHA first round playoff series from the Beavers. BSU senior Jamie McQueen scored two late goals, but it wasn’t quite enough to match UND’s Mark MacMillan-Carter Rowney-Michael Parks line, who followed up a seven-point performance in Friday’s 4-1 victory with a six-point night in the rematch.

Most Important Meeting: October 15, 2010 (Bemidji, MN). In the first game played at the BREC, North Dakota spotted BSU the opening goal less than two minutes into the contest and then steamrolled the Beavers 5-2. The Fighting Sioux outshot their fellow Green-and-Whiters 38-14.

Last Ten: North Dakota has won nine of the last ten meetings between the teams, outscoring BSU 41-20 during that stretch. One of those UND victories was a 4-3 overtime decision in Grand Forks, while Bemidji State’s lone bright spot was a 1-0 home win last season.

All-time Series: UND leads the all-time series, 24-2-1 (.907), including a 16-1-1 (.917) record in games played in Grand Forks. Bemidji State’s lone victory in Grand Forks came on February 7, 1970.

Game News and Notes:

UND senior forward Danny Kristo has not scored a single point in six career games against the Beavers. BSU has been outshot in 22 of 27 games this season. North Dakota junior netminder Clarke Saunders faced Bemidji State three times in his career at Alabama-Huntsville, winning one game and losing two others. In overtime games this season, UND has not lost (2-0-6) while BSU has not won (0-3-7).

The Prediction

Everything points to North Dakota domination, but it’s not that simple. Bemidji State has historically played UND tough, and I expect another gritty weekend from the Beavers this time around. Look for a close contest Friday, with North Dakota pulling away on Saturday. UND 3-2, 5-1.