Month: December 2025

ChampsRankELO – Dec. 14, 2025

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date December 14, 2025

This is the third iteration of the ChampsRankELO ranking report. An explanation of the methodology can be found here.

Note: In the next few days, the rankings will be updated automatically.

Click here to view our other Dec. 14th ranking: ChampsRankSOS

ChampsRankELO: DI Women’s College Hockey

as of December 14, 2025

Rank	Team	ELO Rating	Games Played
1	Wisconsin	1700	20
2	Ohio State	1651	18
3	Penn State	1640	18
4	UConn	1621	18
5	Princeton	1621	15
6	Northeastern	1616	19
7	Minnesota	1607	18
8	Minnesota Duluth	1589	18
9	Quinnipiac	1578	20
10	Clarkson	1565	19
11	Minnesota State	1538	20
12	Mercyhurst	1534	22
13	Yale	1530	16
14	St. Cloud State	1525	20
15	Cornell	1519	16
16	Holy Cross	1518	21
17	Colgate	1516	20
18	Franklin Pierce	1514	19
19	St. Lawrence	1505	21
20	RIT	1504	22
21	Boston College	1503	20
22	Maine	1494	20
23	New Hampshire	1491	21
24	Vermont	1489	20
25	Robert Morris	1488	24
26	Brown	1486	16
27	Union	1483	20
28	Boston University	1482	18
29	Harvard	1481	14
30	Providence	1465	19
31	St. Thomas	1461	20
32	Stonehill	1459	19
33	Syracuse	1458	22
34	Saint Anselm	1457	20
35	Assumption	1456	20
36	RPI	1449	21
37	Dartmouth	1443	16
38	Lindenwood	1432	22
39	Bemidji State	1426	18
40	Merrimack	1405	18
41	LIU	1398	18
42	Post	1395	20
43	Sacred Heart	1359	18
44	Delaware	1351	20
45	Saint Michaels	1283	16

ChampsRankELO Rankings Comparison: December 7 vs December 14, 2025

The ChampsRankELO rankings were stable in positions, with all top 10 teams holding their spots from December 7 to December 14. However, every team in the top 10 saw rating declines, reflecting the time-decay model’s gradual reduction of older game weights. Wisconsin remains #1 but dropped from 1718 to 1700.39 ELO points, while Ohio State held #2 but fell from 1664 to 1650.98. Penn State stayed at #3 (1646 → 1639.98), and the tight race between Princeton (#4, 1633 → 1621.01) and UConn (#5, 1632 → 1621.30) narrowed to 0.29 ELO points. The consistent downward trend across all teams suggests that the limited game activity between December 7–14 (only five games completed, none involving top-ranked teams) allowed the time-decay mechanism to reduce the weight of older results without new competitive outcomes to offset the decline.

The middle rankings (6–10) followed the same pattern, with Northeastern (#6, 1625 → 1616.07), Minnesota (#7, 1616 → 1607.47), Minnesota Duluth (#8, 1598 → 1589.43), Quinnipiac (#9, 1584 → 1578.41), and Clarkson (#10, 1569 → 1565.48) all experiencing modest rating decreases while maintaining their positions. The ELO system’s sequential processing and time-decay mechanism mean that without new games to process, teams’ ratings naturally decline as older games lose weight. This week’s sparse schedule, combined with the fact that the few games played (involving Dartmouth, Robert Morris, LIU, Saint Anselm, Saint Michaels, Brown, and Yale) didn’t involve any top-ranked teams, explains why the rankings remained static in terms of positions but showed uniform rating decreases across the board.

Got feedback on the ChampsRankELO model? Submit feedback here

Tags rankinigs, tag, womens-college-hockey

2025 2026 Rankings Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

ChampsRankSOS – Strength-of-Schedule Dec. 14, 2025

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date December 14, 2025

This is the third iteration of the ChampsRankSOS ranking report. An explanation of the methodology can be found here.

Click here to view our other ranking: ChampsRankELO Dec. 14, 2025

ChampsRankSOS (with Decay Rate): DI Women’s College Hockey

as of December 14, 2025

GD = Goal Differential vs. Opponent

SOS = Strength of Schedule Rating of Opponent

Rank	Team	Rating	GD	SOS	Games Played
1	Wisconsin	20.00	3.8	16.2	20
2	Ohio State	19.23	2.3	16.9	18
3	Minnesota	18.45	1.9	16.5	18
4	Penn State	17.93	3.6	14.4	18
5	Minnesota Duluth	17.51	0.9	16.6	18
6	St. Cloud State	16.47	-0.2	16.7	20
7	Princeton	16.47	1.3	15.1	15
8	Northeastern	16.36	1.5	14.9	19
9	Minnesota State	16.29	0.0	16.3	20
10	Quinnipiac	16.27	1.4	14.9	20
11	UConn	16.25	1.1	15.2	18
12	St. Thomas	15.75	-1.0	16.7	20
13	Cornell	15.73	1.1	14.6	16
14	Clarkson	15.71	0.6	15.1	19
15	Mercyhurst	15.40	0.8	14.6	22
16	Colgate	15.28	-0.3	15.6	20
17	Yale	15.13	0.5	14.6	16
18	Boston College	14.89	-0.1	15.0	20
19	RIT	14.69	0.5	14.2	22
20	St. Lawrence	14.68	-0.5	15.1	21
21	Boston University	14.67	-0.6	15.3	18
22	New Hampshire	14.63	0.4	14.2	21
23	Harvard	14.53	0.5	14.0	14
24	Brown	14.52	0.1	14.4	16
25	Holy Cross	14.47	0.9	13.6	21
26	Maine	14.33	-0.8	15.2	20
27	Union	14.21	0.2	14.0	20
28	Vermont	14.15	-1.1	15.2	20
29	Bemidji State	14.12	-2.5	16.6	18
30	Providence	14.04	-0.8	14.9	19
31	Robert Morris	13.80	0.2	13.6	24
32	Syracuse	13.62	-1.0	14.6	22
33	Lindenwood	13.58	-0.9	14.5	22
34	Dartmouth	13.12	-0.8	13.9	16
35	RPI	13.06	-1.4	14.5	21
36	Merrimack	12.87	-1.6	14.5	18
37	Saint Anselm	12.12	0.4	11.8	20
38	Franklin Pierce	11.99	0.9	11.1	19
39	Stonehill	11.55	-0.1	11.7	19
40	Assumption	11.50	0.0	11.5	20
41	Delaware	11.36	-3.0	14.3	20
42	Sacred Heart	10.92	-0.7	11.6	18
43	Post	10.34	-1.2	11.6	20
44	LIU	10.33	-1.1	11.5	18
45	Saint Michaels	7.13	-4.5	11.7	16

ChampsRankSOS Rankings Comparison: December 7 vs December 14, 2025

The ChampsRankSOS rankings were stable at the top, with the top five teams holding their positions and showing slight rating improvements. Wisconsin remains #1 at 20.00, followed by Ohio State (19.21 → 19.23), Minnesota (18.42 → 18.45), Penn State (17.89 → 17.93), and Minnesota Duluth (17.49 → 17.51). The limited movement reflects only five completed games between December 7–14. Those games involved lower-ranked teams (Dartmouth, Robert Morris, LIU, Saint Anselm, Saint Michaels, Brown, and Yale), so they had minimal impact on the top teams’ strength of schedule. The most notable change was in the 6–10 range, where St. Cloud State moved from #7 to #6 (16.44 → 16.47), while Princeton dropped from #6 to #7 (16.46 → 16.47), separated by 0.0008 rating points. Minnesota State entered the top 10, climbing from #11 to #9 (16.29), while UConn fell out of the top 10, dropping from #10 to likely #11 or lower. The time-decay model’s emphasis on recent results, combined with the sparse schedule, explains why the rankings stayed largely stable with only minor adjustments in the middle tier. The lack of games involving top-ranked teams meant their ratings were primarily affected by the gradual decay of older results rather than new competitive outcomes.

Got feedback on the ChampsRankSOS model? Submit feedback here

Tags rankings, tag, womens-college-hockey

2025 2026 Rankings Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

ChampsRankSOS – Strength-of-Schedule Dec. 7, 2025

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date December 7, 2025

This is the second iteration of the ChampsRankSOS ranking report. An explanation of the methodology can be found here. In the next few days, we will be publishing the rankings in real-time.

Given Wisconsin’s sweep this weekend, we have decided to only focus on the time-decay version of our Strength-of-Schedule model (using a 45-day decay rate).

Click here to view our other ranking: ChampsRankELO Dec. 7, 2025

ChampsRankSOS (with Decay Rate): DI Women’s College Hockey

as of December 7, 2025

GD = Goal Differential vs. Opponent

SOS = Strength of Schedule Rating of Opponent

Rank	Team	Rating	GD	SOS	Games Played
1	Wisconsin	20.00	3.8	16.2	20
2	Ohio State	19.21	2.3	16.9	18
3	Minnesota	18.42	1.9	16.5	18
4	Penn State	17.89	3.6	14.3	18
5	Minnesota Duluth	17.49	0.9	16.5	18
6	Princeton	16.46	1.3	15.1	15
7	St. Cloud State	16.44	-0.2	16.6	20
8	Northeastern	16.36	1.5	14.9	19
9	Quinnipiac	16.28	1.4	14.9	20
10	UConn	16.25	1.1	15.2	18
11	Minnesota State	16.23	0.0	16.3	20
12	St. Thomas	15.74	-1.0	16.7	20
13	Cornell	15.71	1.1	14.6	16
14	Clarkson	15.69	0.6	15.1	19
15	Mercyhurst	15.37	0.8	14.6	22
16	Colgate	15.26	-0.3	15.5	20
17	Yale	15.13	0.5	14.6	16
18	Boston College	14.91	-0.1	15.1	20
19	Boston University	14.68	-0.6	15.3	18
20	St. Lawrence	14.65	-0.5	15.1	21
21	New Hampshire	14.65	0.4	14.3	21
22	RIT	14.65	0.5	14.2	22
23	Harvard	14.51	0.5	14.0	14
24	Brown	14.50	0.1	14.4	16
25	Holy Cross	14.50	0.9	13.6	21
26	Maine	14.35	-0.8	15.2	20
27	Union	14.21	0.2	14.0	20
28	Vermont	14.19	-1.1	15.3	20
29	Bemidji State	14.08	-2.5	16.5	18
30	Providence	14.04	-0.8	14.9	19
31	Robert Morris	13.60	-0.5	14.1	22
32	Syracuse	13.59	-1.0	14.6	22
33	Lindenwood	13.53	-0.9	14.5	22
34	RPI	13.02	-1.4	14.4	21
35	Merrimack	12.89	-1.6	14.5	18
36	Dartmouth	12.87	-2.0	14.9	14
37	Saint Anselm	12.46	0.6	11.9	19
38	Franklin Pierce	12.27	0.9	11.4	19
39	Stonehill	11.81	-0.1	11.9	19
40	Assumption	11.73	0.0	11.7	20
41	Delaware	11.35	-3.0	14.3	20
42	Sacred Heart	11.17	-0.7	11.9	18
43	LIU	10.83	-0.4	11.2	16
44	Post	10.61	-1.2	11.8	20
45	Saint Michaels	7.52	-4.2	11.7	15

The main change is a flip at the top.

On Nov 30, Ohio State was #1 (20.00) and Wisconsin #2 (19.78). On Dec 7, Wisconsin is #1 (20.00) and Ohio State #2 (19.21). Wisconsin’s 6-1 win over Ohio State on Dec 6, weighted heavily by the decay model, likely drove the change. Wisconsin beat Ohio State in both their meetings this past weekend.

Other Dec 5–6 results affected the rankings. In ECAC, Princeton beat Colgate 6-1, Quinnipiac won 3-0 at Cornell, RPI won 3-1 at Dartmouth, Harvard beat Union 4-2, and Yale won 3-2 at Brown. In Hockey East, Northeastern won 3-1 at Boston College, Maine won 4-3 in OT at New Hampshire, and Holy Cross won 2-0 at Vermont. These outcomes, especially the Wisconsin–Ohio State result, shifted ratings in the decay model.

Rating adjustments in the top 5

Minnesota remains #3 but dropped from 18.71 to 18.42. Penn State stays #4, down from 18.15 to 17.89. Minnesota Duluth remains #5, up from 17.76 to 17.49. The decay model’s emphasis on recent results, combined with Wisconsin’s strong recent form, explains the shift at the top.

Got feedback on the ChampsRankSOS model? Submit feedback here

Tags rankings, tag, womens-college-hockey

Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

ChampsRankELO – Dec. 7, 2025

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date December 7, 2025

This is the second iteration of the ChampsRankELO ranking report. An explanation of the methodology can be found here.

Note: In the next few days, the rankings will be updated automatically.

Click here to view our other ranking: ChampsRankSOS

ChampsRankELO: DI Women’s College Hockey

as of December 7, 2025

Rank	Team	ELO Rating	Games Played
1	Wisconsin	1718	20
2	Ohio State	1664	18
3	Penn State	1646	18
4	Princeton	1633	15
5	UConn	1632	18
6	Northeastern	1625	19
7	Minnesota	1616	18
8	Minnesota Duluth	1598	18
9	Quinnipiac	1584	20
10	Clarkson	1569	19
11	Minnesota State	1537	20
12	Mercyhurst	1531	22
13	St. Cloud State	1530	20
14	Yale	1525	16
15	Franklin Pierce	1525	19
16	Colgate	1516	20
17	Cornell	1515	16
18	Holy Cross	1514	21
19	St. Lawrence	1504	21
20	Boston College	1504	20
21	Maine	1496	20
22	RIT	1496	22
23	Vermont	1490	20
24	Saint Anselm	1489	19
25	New Hampshire	1489	21
26	Boston University	1483	18
27	Brown	1480	16
28	Union	1480	20
29	Harvard	1474	14
30	Stonehill	1465	19
31	Providence	1464	19
32	St. Thomas	1458	20
33	Assumption	1456	20
34	Syracuse	1450	22
35	Robert Morris	1441	22
36	RPI	1439	21
37	LIU	1435	16
38	Lindenwood	1423	22
39	Bemidji State	1416	18
40	Dartmouth	1403	14
41	Merrimack	1397	18
42	Post	1394	20
43	Sacred Heart	1356	18
44	Delaware	1338	20
45	Saint Michaels	1298	15

The top two flipped

On Nov 30, Ohio State was #1 (1712) and Wisconsin #2 (1663). On Dec 7, Wisconsin is #1 (1718.14) and Ohio State #2 (1663.97). Wisconsin’s 6-1 win at Ohio State on Dec 6 drove the change, boosting Wisconsin by ~55 points and dropping Ohio State by ~48.

Weekend results impact

Other Dec 5–6 results shifted rankings. Princeton moved from #8 (1588) to #4 (1631.55) after a 6-1 win at Colgate and a 3-2 win at Cornell. UConn dropped from #3 (1647) to #5 (1630.92) after a 1-1 OT tie with Boston University and a 3-2 loss at Boston University. Penn State moved from #4 (1644) to #3 (1645.64) with steady results. Minnesota dropped from #5 (1599) to #7 (1616.00) despite a 4-1 win over St. Thomas, as other teams gained more from their results.

Notable movements in the middle rankings

Northeastern moved from #6 (1598) to #6 (1625) after a 3-1 win at Boston College. Minnesota Duluth moved from #7 (1597) to #8 (1597.5) after a 4-0 win at Bemidji State. The ELO system’s sequential processing and margin-of-victory adjustments explain these shifts, with Wisconsin’s decisive win having the largest impact.

Got feedback on the ChampsRankELO model? Submit feedback here

Tags rankinigs, tag, womens-college-hockey

Rankings Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

Introducing Two New ChampsRank Models for DI Women’s Hockey

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date December 2, 2025

To complement the existing subjective polls and the NCAA’s NPI system, we’ve developed two fully objective ranking models built on modern analytics:

ChampsRankSOS – Strength-of-Schedule Model
ChampsRankELO – ELO-Based Rating System

Here are the first two iterations of the models as of games completed on November 30th, 2025:

ChampsRankSOS – Strength-of-Schedule Model

ChampsRankELO – ELO-Based Rating System

Here are the rankings from Dec. 7, 2025

ChampsRankSOS – Strength-of-Schedule Dec. 7, 2025

ChampsRankELO – Dec. 7, 2025

Both models are designed to be transparent, data-driven, and updated within a few hours of each game, making them some of the fastest-refreshing public rankings available.

Our intent is to provide a clear, unbiased picture of team strength that reflects actual on-ice performance while avoiding the opacity and inertia that can affect human-voted polls.

ChampsRankSOS — Strength-of-Schedule Model

This system is structurally similar to MyHockeyRankings, but with important enhancements that make it better suited for college hockey.

Key Features

Strength-of-Schedule + margin of victory as core components
±7 goal cap on margin of victory (Note: There was consideration for increasing/ignoring a cap, but after the recent 17-2 Wisconsin win over Stonehill the current cap would not let these kind of anomalies bias the data)
Full iterative recalculation of all ratings until stable
45-day decay model — recent games are weighted more heavily
- Games older than 45 days typically represent 10+ games ago, meaning they don’t accurately reflect a team’s current form.
- The decay ensures the rankings reward teams improving now, not teams who were hot months ago.
Updated within hours of each game

Core Formula

Rating = GD + SOS

GD: Average goal differential per game (capped at ±7)
SOS: Average opponent rating (recalculated iteratively)

How It Works

Compute each team’s average goal differential
Initialize ratings
Iteratively recalculate: Rating = GD + SOS
Anchor the top team at 20.0
Recompute until convergence
Apply time decay to down-weight older games

ChampsRankELO — ELO-Based Model

Our second system is a modernized hockey-specific ELO model. The ELO model is a rating system that evaluates team or player strength by updating ratings after every game based on the expected outcome versus the actual result. It rewards upsets, penalizes underperformance, and naturally adjusts as more games are played. Originally developed for chess, ELO has since become widely used in sports such as tennis, soccer, basketball, and esports due to its ability to track performance dynamically and objectively.

Key Features

Home-ice advantage bonus: +11 ELO points (based on historical win rates)
45-day half-life time decay on older games
K-factor multipliers for early-season games, conference games, etc.
Margin-of-victory multiplier for blowout wins
Adjusts outcomes differently for regulation, OT, and shootout
Updated within hours of each game

Core Formula

R_new = R_old + K × MOV_multiplier × (S − E)

K: Sensitivity constant (base 32, with multipliers)
MOV: Margin of victory multiplier
S: Actual game outcome
E: Expected outcome (based on rating difference + home-ice advantage)

How It Works

All teams begin at 1500 ELO
Process games chronologically (one pass)
For each game:
- Compute expected outcome
- Apply home-ice advantage
- Update ratings using K-factor + MOV + decay
No iteration required — ratings naturally evolve over time

Main Differences at a Glance

Feature	ChampsRankSOS	ChampsRankELO
Basis	Goal differential	Win/loss outcomes
Processing	Iterative	Sequential (one pass)
Starting Point	AGD-based	All teams start at 1500
Top Team	Fixed at 20.0	Emerges naturally
Home Advantage	Not modeled	+11 ELO points
Time Decay	Yes — 45-day decay	Yes — 45-day half-life

Tags college-hockey-recruiting, rankings, tag, womens-college-hockey

Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

ChampsRankELO – ELO-Based Rating System

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date December 2, 2025

This is the first iteration of the ChampsRankELO ranking report. An explanation of the methodology can be found here.

Note: As we make tweaks and automate this ranking system, updates will be made throughout each game day. Hopefully, this will happen in the next week or two.

Click here to view our other ranking: ChampsRankSOS

ChampsRankELO: DI Women’s College Hockey

as of November 30, 2025

Rank	Team	ELO Rating	Games Played
1	Ohio State	1712	16
2	Wisconsin	1663	18
3	UConn	1647	16
4	Penn State	1644	18
5	Minnesota	1599	16
6	Northeastern	1598	16
7	Minnesota Duluth	1597	16
8	Princeton	1588	13
9	Clarkson	1574	17
10	Minnesota State	1570	18
11	Cornell	1566	14
12	Quinnipiac	1564	18
13	Mercyhurst	1547	20
14	Boston College	1531	18
15	Vermont	1530	18
16	Yale	1530	14
17	Colgate	1523	18
18	Holy Cross	1521	18
19	Saint Anselm	1514	17
20	Union	1513	18
21	St. Cloud State	1505	18
22	St. Lawrence	1504	19
23	Franklin Pierce	1499	17
24	Harvard	1495	12
25	New Hampshire	1489	18
26	St. Thomas	1483	18
27	RIT	1481	20
28	Brown	1479	14
29	Syracuse	1466	20
30	Maine	1466	18
31	Dartmouth	1442	12
32	Providence	1439	17
33	Bemidji State	1437	16
34	Stonehill	1435	17
35	Boston University	1430	15
36	Merrimack	1429	16
37	Assumption	1426	18
38	Post	1420	17
39	Lindenwood	1408	20
40	Robert Morris	1404	20
41	LIU	1391	14
42	RPI	1384	19
43	Sacred Heart	1369	15
44	Delaware	1366	18
45	Saint Michaels	1326	13

St. Anselm vs. St Cloud State?

Why St. Anselm is ranked #19 (1514 ELO)

Win record: 11-6-0 (64.7%) vs St. Cloud State’s 6-11-1 (33.3%)

Nearly twice as many wins, which ELO rewards directly

2. Goal differential: +12 (+0.71/game) vs St. Cloud State’s -6 (-0.33/game)

Positive differential plus blowout wins (e.g., 8-2 vs LIU) boost ELO via the MOV multiplier

3. Weak schedule: Average opponent rating 1441.54

108 ELO points weaker than St. Cloud State’s opponents
Easier wins, but sequential ELO compounds early wins

Why St. Cloud State is ranked #21 (1505 ELO)

Losing record: 6-11-1 (33.3%)

Fewer wins despite playing stronger competition

2. Negative goal differential: -6 (-0.33/game)

Compounded by losses to strong teams

3. Strong schedule: Average opponent rating 1549.28

108 ELO points stronger than St. Anselm’s opponents
Early losses to strong teams (UConn, Minnesota) deflated their rating early

The core problem: Sequential compounding

ELO processes games chronologically, so early results set the trajectory:

St. Anselm: Early wins against weak teams (starting at 1500) boosted their rating. Even after those teams’ ratings dropped, St. Anselm’s rating stayed higher, making later wins worth more.
St. Cloud State: Early losses to strong teams deflated their rating. Even after those teams’ ratings rose, St. Cloud State’s rating stayed lower, making later wins worth less.

The SOS adjustment (post-processing, multiplier 1.0) helps but can’t fully undo the 108-point schedule gap and the compounding effects. This is why ChampsRankSOS ranks St. Cloud State #9 vs St. Anselm #36 — the iterative approach accounts for schedule strength holistically.

ChampsRankELO vs. ChampsRankSOS:

Consensus at the top: Both systems rank Ohio State #1 and Wisconsin #2, but ELO shows a larger gap (49.23 points vs 0.22 in ChampsRank1).

2. Major differences in middle rankings:

UConn: #3 in ELO vs #7 in ChampsRankSOS (ELO favors recent momentum)
St. Cloud State: #9 in ChampsRankSOS vs #21 in ELO (ChampsRankSOS better accounts for schedule strength)
Saint Anselm: #19 in ELO vs #36 in ChampsRank1 (17-rank difference – ELO influenced by early wins vs weak teams)

3 . Methodological differences:

ELO: Sequential processing captures momentum; recent games have immediate impact
ChampsRankSOS: Iterative approach provides a more holistic season evaluation
Both use 45-day time decay, but apply it differently

Got feedback on the ChampsRankELO model? Submit feedback here

Tags rankinigs, tag, womens-college-hockey

2025 2026 Rankings Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

ChampsRankSOS – Strength-of-Schedule

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date December 2, 2025

This is the first iteration of the ChampsRankSOS ranking report. An explanation of the methodology can be found here.

We initially planned to publish only the time-decay version of our Strength-of-Schedule model (using a 45-day decay rate). However, the differences between the decay and no-decay versions were significant enough that it made sense to release both. This allows a clear comparison between a full-season evaluation and a ranking system that emphasizes recent performance — something both subjective polls and postseason selection committees tend to value. This weekend’s upcoming games between Wisconsin and Ohio State, might tell us which methodology makes more sense.

Click here to view our other ranking: ChampsRankELO

ChampsRankSOS with Decay Rate: DI Women’s College Hockey

as of November 30, 2025

GD = Goal Differential vs. Opponent

SOS = Strength of Schedule Rating of Opponent

Rank	Team	Rating	GD	SOS	Games Played
1	Ohio State	20.00	3.46	16.54	16
2	Wisconsin	19.78	3.96	15.82	18
3	Minnesota	18.71	1.82	16.89	16
4	Penn State	18.15	3.56	14.58	18
5	Minnesota Duluth	17.76	0.33	17.44	16
6	Minnesota State	16.77	0.24	16.53	18
7	UConn	16.73	1.21	15.52	16
8	Northeastern	16.66	1.58	15.08	16
9	St. Cloud State	16.48	-0.53	17.01	18
10	Quinnipiac	16.41	1.50	14.91	18
11	Cornell	16.35	1.74	14.61	14
12	Princeton	16.21	0.94	15.27	13
13	Clarkson	16.04	0.60	15.44	17
14	St. Thomas	15.94	-0.64	16.58	18
15	Colgate	15.74	0.04	15.71	18
16	Yale	15.67	0.74	14.93	14
17	Mercyhurst	15.52	0.54	14.99	20
18	Boston College	15.22	0.21	15.01	18
19	Harvard	15.04	0.68	14.37	12
20	RIT	15.04	0.10	14.93	20
21	St. Lawrence	14.83	-0.45	15.27	19
22	New Hampshire	14.75	0.52	14.23	18
23	Holy Cross	14.73	1.14	13.59	18
24	Vermont	14.72	-1.02	15.74	18
25	Union	14.64	0.41	14.23	18
26	Brown	14.46	-0.01	14.47	14
27	Maine	14.39	-1.07	15.46	18
28	Bemidji State	14.36	-2.24	16.60	16
29	Boston University	14.34	-1.02	15.36	15
30	Providence	14.08	-1.21	15.30	17
31	Syracuse	13.85	-1.06	14.91	20
32	Lindenwood	13.77	-0.75	14.53	20
33	Robert Morris	13.72	-0.71	14.44	20
34	Dartmouth	13.33	-2.27	15.61	12
35	Merrimack	13.08	-1.71	14.80	16
36	Saint Anselm	13.01	0.99	12.02	17
37	RPI	12.84	-2.01	14.85	19
38	Franklin Pierce	12.38	0.92	11.46	17
39	Assumption	11.74	-0.34	12.09	18
40	Stonehill	11.67	-1.25	12.92	17
41	Sacred Heart	11.65	-0.61	12.26	15
42	Delaware	11.38	-3.07	14.46	18
43	Post	11.12	-1.29	12.41	17
44	LIU	10.66	-0.98	11.64	14
45	Saint Michaels	8.24	-3.74	11.97	13

ChampsRankSOS without Decay Rate (Full Season Rating): DI Women’s College Hockey

as of November 30, 2025

Rank	Team	Rating	GD	SOS	Games Played
1	Wisconsin	20.00	4.06	15.94	18
2	Ohio State	19.81	3.25	16.56	16
3	Minnesota	19.14	2.25	16.89	16
4	Penn State	18.10	3.72	14.37	18
5	Minnesota Duluth	17.80	0.63	17.18	16
6	St. Cloud State	16.73	-0.33	17.06	18
7	Northeastern	16.69	1.69	15.00	16
8	Cornell	16.66	2.00	14.66	14
9	Quinnipiac	16.65	1.83	14.82	18
10	UConn	16.62	1.00	15.62	16
11	Minnesota State	16.49	0.11	16.38	18
12	Princeton	16.05	0.77	15.29	13
13	St. Thomas	15.97	-0.06	16.02	18
14	Clarkson	15.93	0.76	15.17	17
15	Colgate	15.79	0.06	15.74	18
16	Yale	15.71	0.79	14.92	14
17	Mercyhurst	15.53	0.35	15.18	20
18	Boston College	15.17	-0.11	15.28	18
19	RIT	15.02	0.35	14.67	20
20	Harvard	14.98	0.58	14.40	12
21	St. Lawrence	14.89	-0.47	15.37	19
22	Vermont	14.79	-0.94	15.74	18
23	New Hampshire	14.78	0.61	14.16	18
24	Bemidji State	14.68	-2.25	16.93	16
25	Brown	14.61	0.07	14.53	14
26	Holy Cross	14.57	1.11	13.46	18
27	Union	14.49	0.17	14.32	18
28	Maine	14.43	-1.22	15.65	18
29	Boston University	14.40	-1.27	15.66	15
30	Providence	13.99	-1.47	15.46	17
31	Syracuse	13.78	-1.15	14.93	20
32	Lindenwood	13.69	-1.20	14.89	20
33	Robert Morris	13.62	-0.75	14.37	20
34	Dartmouth	13.47	-2.00	15.47	12
35	Merrimack	13.18	-1.63	14.81	16
36	RPI	12.85	-2.00	14.85	19
37	Saint Anselm	12.81	0.71	12.10	17
38	Franklin Pierce	12.32	0.47	11.85	17
39	Sacred Heart	11.77	-0.33	12.10	15
40	Assumption	11.72	-0.44	12.16	18
41	Stonehill	11.66	-1.06	12.72	17
42	Delaware	11.35	-3.00	14.36	18
43	Post	11.01	-1.76	12.77	17
44	LIU	10.82	-0.64	11.46	14
45	Saint Michaels	8.60	-3.38	11.99	13

#1 Ranking Flip

When recent games are weighted more heavily, Ohio State takes over the top spot. Over the full season, Wisconsin remains #1.

• Without decay: Wisconsin #1 (20.00), Ohio State #2 (19.81)
• With decay: Ohio State #1 (20.00), Wisconsin #2 (19.78)

Why the flip occurs

• Wisconsin: Goal differential drops from 4.06 → 3.96 due to early-season blowouts being de-weighted (e.g., 17–2 vs. Stonehill, 8–0 vs. Minnesota State).
• Ohio State: Goal differential rises from 3.25 → 3.46, reflecting stronger recent games.
• Game volume: Wisconsin has 18 games — more older results get discounted. Ohio State has 16 — more of their games retain full weight.
• Decay math: Games older than ~60 days count at roughly 35% weight, boosting teams with stronger recent form.

Other Notable Shifts

• Minnesota State: +5 spots (11 → 6) — largest improvement
• Bemidji State: –4 spots (24 → 28) — largest decline
• 24 teams experienced movement between the two models

Got feedback on the ChampsRankSOS model? Submit feedback here

Tags rankings, tag, womens-college-hockey

College Hockey Recruiting Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

Women’s DI Hockey Polls & Rankings: A Clearer Look

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date December 1, 2025

Over the past few weeks, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated with the two major weekly polls in women’s Division I college hockey. Because I track nearly all 45 DI teams closely, I have a pretty strong feel for each team’s true performance level. Yet after weekends filled with upsets or narrow wins over weaker opponents, I’m continually surprised by how certain teams — and some conferences — appear to be ranked higher than expected. While the NPI (see below for detailed explanation) is objective and used for at-large playoff selections, it also isn’t perfect.

As a result, I decided to apply my own analytics to create a new, objective Champs App ranking for DI women’s hockey. But before sharing that system, here’s a breakdown of the current major polls and ranking models.

🔢 Three Types of Ratings: Subjective vs. Objective

Women’s DI hockey currently uses three major rating systems, which fall into two categories:

Subjective (human-voted):
- USCHO.com Poll
- USA Hockey / AHCA Poll
Objective (mathematical):
- NCAA Power Index (NPI) — now the official NCAA selection metric
- PairWise Ranking (PWR) — the legacy system, replaced by NPI

Below is a clear summary of how each poll or model works.

1. USCHO.com Poll (Subjective)

The USCHO.com poll is a traditional, human-voted ranking composed of sportswriters, broadcasters, and coaches. Neither the list of voters nor their individual ballots are published.

PROS

Contextual Judgment

Captures elements no algorithm can quantify: the “eye test,” injuries, momentum, travel fatigue, and lineup changes.

Media Relevance

Drives debate, fan engagement, and weekly storylines.

Focus on Current Form

Voters can quickly adjust for hot streaks or slumps, sometimes more rapidly than data-based systems.

CONS

Lack of Transparency

No published criteria. Voters have full discretion, making results unpredictable and unauditable.

Inconsistency and Bias

Subject to inertia (teams maintaining rank despite bad losses) and regional bias. It’s not difficult to guess which conferences receive the benefit of the doubt.

Weak Tournament Predictor

Often diverges significantly from the objective NPI used to select NCAA tournament teams.

2. USA Hockey / AHCA Poll (Subjective)

This weekly poll is conducted by USA Hockey in partnership with the American Hockey Coaches Association (AHCA).

Methodology

Human-voted, similar to USCHO.
Voters include coaches and journalists from all NCAA women’s hockey conferences.
Rankings are based on total points from submitted ballots.

While it provides valuable insight from actual DI coaches, it shares the same challenges as USCHO:

Only 19 voters
No transparency into who they are or how they vote
Susceptible to the same regional biases and subjective inconsistencies

The coexistence of two separate human polls does help smooth out extreme opinions — and when they differ noticeably, it signals a lack of consensus that adds useful context that a single mathematical model cannot provide.

3. NCAA Power Index (NPI) and PairWise (PWR) (Objective)

The NCAA Power Index has fully replaced PairWise as the official NCAA tournament selection tool. NPI is a streamlined, strength-of-schedule-driven model that uses an opponent-based rating system and assigns bonuses for beating highly rated teams.

PROS

Pure Objectivity

Removes human bias. Rankings come directly from win percentage and opponent strength, based on a fully transparent formula.

Improved Strength-of-Schedule (SOS)

Uses opponents’ NPI ratings directly, replacing the more convoluted RPI components of the old PairWise system.

Rewards Quality Wins

Includes a Quality Win Bonus (QWB) for beating strong opponents — and importantly does not penalize teams for beating weaker opponents (a major flaw of old RPI).

CONS

No Contextual Adjustments

Ignores coaching changes, injuries, goalie slumps, or roster disruptions that human voters naturally account for.

Occasional Mathematical Oddities

Any complex model can produce counterintuitive outcomes in specific cases.

Self-Referencing Structure

Because a team’s NPI depends on opponents’ NPI — which depends on their opponents — the calculation must be iterated to find a stable solution.

NPI Statistical Engine (Simplified)

25%: Win Percentage
75%: Opponents’ NPI (Strength of Schedule)
Quality Win Bonus (QWB): Extra credit for beating high-NPI teams
Bad Win Treatment: Mechanisms to remove or neutralize extremely low-value wins
Strength-of-Schedule (SOS): Directly uses opponents’ final NPI rating for a cleaner, more intuitive strength measure

🔜 What’s Next

In the next post, I’ll introduce the Champs App proposal for two new objective ranking models:

A simplified, transparent Strength-of-Schedule Index
An ELO-based model similar to the systems used in chess and tennis

Both provide intuitive, statistically robust alternatives to today’s polls — without the subjectivity of human rankings.

Tags college-hockey-recruiting, tag, womens-college-hockey, womens-hockey