ChampsRankELO – ELO-Based Rating System

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)

1. 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)

1. 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:

1. 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