Sioux Sports Talk

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!

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%

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%

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%

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%

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)

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.

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

• You are the Committee calculator (CollegeHockeyNews.com)
• Pairwise Predictor (USCHO.com)
• Current PWR Rankings (SiouxSports.com)
• Current RPI Rankings (SiouxSports.com)
• CHN PWR Rankings (CollegeHockeyNews.com)
• TBRW build your own rankings (slack.net)
• Explanation of how PWR mimics NCAA tournament selection (CollegeHockeyNews.com)

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.

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