Category: 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

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

Women's Hockey

Score Your Spot: Why Field Hockey Recruiting Camps Are a Game-Changer

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date October 27, 2025

For aspiring collegiate field hockey players, the path to playing at the next level can feel like a maze. Between academics, club seasons, and high school games, how do you get noticed by college coaches? The answer, for many, lies in field hockey recruiting camps.

These camps are more than just an opportunity to sharpen your skills; they’re a crucial platform for exposure, evaluation, and making connections that can shape your recruiting journey.

What Makes Recruiting Camps So Valuable?

Unlike regular skills camps, recruiting camps are specifically designed with college coaches in mind. Here’s why they’re a game-changer:

Direct Exposure to College Coaches: This is the primary draw. Coaches from various NCAA divisions (DI, DII, DIII) attend these camps to scout talent. You’ll often be instructed by or playing directly in front of them, giving them a firsthand look at your abilities and potential.
Skill Development and Evaluation: Beyond being seen, you’ll receive high-level instruction from experienced coaches. This helps you refine your technique, understand game strategies, and get valuable feedback on areas for improvement. Coaches are also evaluating your coachability, attitude, and how you interact with teammates.
Understanding the College Game: Many camps include informational sessions about the college recruiting process, NCAA rules, and what it takes to be a collegiate athlete. You might also get a feel for campus life if the camp is hosted at a university.
Networking Opportunities: Not only will you connect with coaches, but you’ll also meet other aspiring collegiate athletes. These connections can be valuable for future tournaments and even friendships.
Targeted Feedback: Some camps offer individual evaluations, providing specific insights into your performance and how you stack up against other recruits.

Types of Recruiting Camps and Showcases

There are generally two main categories of events that offer recruiting opportunities:

College-Hosted Camps/Clinics: Many universities host their own camps on campus. Attending these shows direct interest in that specific program and allows you to work directly with the coaching staff and often current players from that team. This is an excellent way to get a feel for the school and its field hockey program.
Independent Showcases: These events bring together coaches from multiple colleges in one location. They are often larger and provide a broader range of exposure.

Examples of Popular Field Hockey Recruiting Events:

Here are some well-known events and organizations that host recruiting camps and showcases. Keep in mind that dates and locations vary annually, so always check their official websites for the most up-to-date information.

Nexus (USA Field Hockey): An evolution of USA Field Hockey’s former Futures program, Nexus is designed to connect players to coaches and provide a challenging, competitive experience. It’s often a pathway for elite development and exposure. You can find more information on the USA Field Hockey website.
College Connection: This nationally leading showcase is often hosted at different colleges throughout the country. Athletes may have the opportunity to choose the coaches they want to work with in smaller, intimate clinics.
The LineUP: A cooperative of NCAA coaches working together to identify and connect with USA field hockey talent. It focuses on small-group clinics where athletes can work directly with coaches they are interested in.
Super Sixty Collegiate Development Camps: These camps are known for bringing in a large number of NCAA coaches (ranging from 32 to 44 coaches per camp) to run practice sessions, games, and host daily seminars, maximizing connections for recruits. You can often find information at Super Sixty Camps.
Surf & Sand’s Field Hockey Showcase: This showcase aims to provide high school athletes with the opportunity to enhance skills, compete at a high level, and gain exposure to college coaches in a summer setting.
Invasion Field Hockey: Offers camps designed for athletes considering playing field hockey in college, with coaches from various universities on staff.
National Hockey Festival: A major tournament that often draws college coaches.
Sunshine Showcase (Disney Showcase): Another large event that provides significant exposure.
Shooting Star Showcases: These are a series of regional and national showcases that attract college coaches.

Tips for Making the Most of a Field Hockey Recruiting Camp:

Do Your Research: Before attending, know which coaches will be there and which schools you’re interested in.
Create a Highlight Video: Even if you’re attending camps, a well-made highlight video is essential to send to coaches beforehand so they know to look for you.
Communicate Effectively: Send introductory emails to coaches you’re interested in, let them know you’ll be at the camp, and follow up afterward.
Be Proactive: Introduce yourself to coaches, ask questions, and show your enthusiasm.
Focus on Fundamentals: Coaches look for strong basic skills, athleticism, and field hockey IQ.
Be Coachable: Listen to feedback and demonstrate your ability to learn and adapt.
Maintain Good Grades: Academic eligibility is just as important as athletic talent.

Field hockey recruiting camps are a significant investment of time and money, but for many, they are an invaluable step toward achieving their dream of playing college field hockey. By understanding their purpose and preparing effectively, you can significantly boost your chances of scoring a spot on a collegiate roster.

2025 College Hockey Recruiting Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

🏒 How ChampsEyeQ Player Reports Work

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date October 8, 2025

ChampsEyeQ turns your game video into a professional, data-driven evaluation that helps you understand where you stand and how to improve.

🎥 Step 1: Submit Your Video

Players upload at least 10 minutes of edited game footage showing complete shifts with real game flow — not just highlights.

👀 Step 2: Expert Scout Evaluation

Our professional scouts — who have evaluated thousands of youth players — analyze your performance across 15+ key attributes, including:

Skating
Hockey IQ & Decision Making
Offensive & Defensive Skills
Compete Level & Intangibles

📊 Step 3: Ratings, Tiers & Feedback

Each player receives a quantitative and qualitative report with:

A numerical rating (1–10) for every skill
An overall average score
A Tier ranking showing how they compare to peers nationwide
Written feedback highlighting key strengths and priority areas for improvement

DOWNLOAD A SAMPLE REPORT Download

🧮 How Ratings Translate into Tiers

Average Rating	Tier	Meaning
8.5+	🏅 Top 5% – Elite Player	Exceptional performance; top national tier
7.8–8.4	🎓 Top 20% – D1 Potential	Typical range of future NCAA Division I players
6.5–7.7	💪 Top 33%	Strong skill base; competitive pathway to D1
5.5–6.4	⚔️ Top 50%	Solid player development foundation
Below 5.5	🔄 Bottom 50%	Early-stage development; focus on fundamentals

Formula: =IFS(Rating≥8.5,“Top 5%–Elite Player”, Rating≥7.8,“Top 20%–D1 Potential”, Rating≥6.5,“Top 33%”, Rating≥5.5,“Top 50%”, TRUE,“Bottom 50%”)

🧭 Step 4: Actionable Insights

ChampsEyeQ combines objective data and expert insight to give players a clear development roadmap — showing not just what their rating is, but why and how to improve.

As more athletes are evaluated, ChampsEyeQ continually updates its benchmarks, giving families an evolving, data-backed view of what it takes to reach the NCAA Division I level.

🚀 Ready to See Where You Stand?

Submit your game footage today and receive your personalized ChampsEyeQ Player Evaluation Report.
👉 Start your submission at www.ChampsEyeQ.com

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

Women's Hockey

Navigating the Cut: The Path Forward for Hockey Players Released from the NAHL in September

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date September 29, 2025

For aspiring young hockey players, September in the North American Hockey League (NAHL) is a time of immense hope and intense pressure. Main camps conclude, and rosters are finalized, leading to the difficult reality of players being cut from their dream of playing Tier II junior hockey. While the initial sting of being released can be disheartening, it is crucial to understand that this is a common part of the junior hockey journey and often opens doors to other valuable opportunities for development and advancement.

For players who are cut from NAHL teams in September, the path forward is typically a swift and dynamic process involving a “trickle-down” effect into other leagues, primarily the Tier III junior ranks. The North American 3 Hockey League (NA3HL), the official Tier III affiliate of the NAHL, stands as the most common and direct landing spot.

The Immediate Aftermath: Communication and Next Steps

The process of being released is typically handled through a direct, in-person meeting with the team’s coaching staff. In this meeting, coaches will inform the player of their decision and, in many cases, provide feedback on areas for improvement. While the news is difficult, it is a professional courtesy that allows players to understand the rationale behind the decision and what they need to work on.

Immediately following this conversation, the player’s support system, particularly their family advisor, springs into action. Advisors play a critical role in navigating the next steps, leveraging their network of contacts within lower-tiered junior leagues and high-level midget programs to find a suitable new team for the player. The urgency is palpable, as Tier III leagues are often in the final stages of their own training camps and roster selections.

The Domino Effect: Opportunities in Tier III and Beyond

Navigating the Cut: The Path Forward for Hockey Players Released from the NAHL in September
For aspiring young hockey players, September in the North American Hockey League (NAHL) is a time of immense hope and intense pressure. Main camps conclude, and rosters are finalized, leading to the difficult reality of players being cut from their dream of playing Tier II junior hockey. While the initial sting of being released can be disheartening, it is crucial to understand that this is a common part of the junior hockey journey and often opens doors to other valuable opportunities for development and advancement.

The Immediate Aftermath: Communication and Next Steps
The process of being released is typically handled through a direct, in-person meeting with the team’s coaching staff. In this meeting, coaches will inform the player of their decision and, in many cases, provide feedback on areas for improvement. While the news is difficult, it is a professional courtesy that allows players to understand the rationale behind the decision and what they need to work on.

The Domino Effect: Opportunities in Tier III and Beyond
The release of players from the NAHL creates a ripple effect throughout the junior hockey landscape. Tier III leagues, such as the NA3HL, the Eastern Hockey League (EHL), and the United States Premier Hockey League (USPHL) Premier, often wait for these cuts to fill their final roster spots. This provides an immediate opportunity for skilled players coming from a higher level of competition.

The NA3HL, with its direct affiliation to the NAHL, offers a particularly structured pathway. Many NAHL organizations have affiliate teams in the NA3HL, and they will often direct their released players to these programs. This allows the NAHL team to keep a close eye on the player’s development throughout the season.

Beyond Tier III, some players may opt for a return to high-level 18U AAA hockey. This can be a strategic move for younger players who may benefit from another year of development before making the jump to junior hockey.

The Tender Question: Understanding Player Rights

A common point of confusion surrounds players who were “tendered” by an NAHL team. A tender is a contract that gives an NAHL team a player’s rights within the league for the upcoming season. If a tendered player is cut, the NAHL team still holds their rights. This means the player cannot sign with another NAHL team unless their rights are traded or released by the original team. However, the player is free to join a team in any other league (Tier III, Midget AAA, etc.). In some instances, the NAHL team may work to trade the player’s rights to another NAHL team that has interest.

The Road Back: Affiliation and Call-Ups

For players who land on an affiliated NA3HL team, the dream of playing in the NAHL is far from over. Throughout the season, NAHL teams can “affiliate” players from their NA3HL counterparts, allowing them to practice with the NAHL team and even be called up to play in a limited number of games. This provides a tangible opportunity for players to prove they are ready for the next level and potentially earn a permanent spot on the NAHL roster later in the season due to injuries or other roster changes.

Being cut from an NAHL team in September is undoubtedly a challenging experience for a young hockey player. However, it is a common and often necessary step in the development process. With a proactive approach, a strong support system, and a commitment to continued improvement, these players can find new opportunities to thrive in the competitive world of junior hockey, with the ultimate goal of returning to the NAHL or advancing to collegiate and professional ranks.

Tags college-hockey-recruiting, junior-hockey, NAHL, tag

Women's Hockey

Welcome to ChampsEyeQ

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date August 25, 2025

What is ChampsEyeQ?

ChampsEyeQ is a professional hockey performance analysis service that provides athletes with expert feedback on their game play through detailed video review. Players are evaluated across 15+ attributes—including offensive and defensive skills, skating, hockey IQ, compete level, and intangibles—and receive both an overall rating and a projection of their potential to play NCAA Division I hockey. Based on multi-year data showing that roughly the top 20% of AAA /Tier 1 female players advance to Division I, ChampsEyeQ benchmarks ratings against this standard, with adjustments made as more athletes are analyzed and tracked over time. By combining objective evaluation with long-term performance insights, ChampsEyeQ gives players actionable guidance to understand where they stand and how to improve.

TRy CHAMPS EYEQ Now

How ChampsEyeQ Works:

Players submit game footage—edited to show full shifts or defensive sequences—and receive a comprehensive evaluation report that highlights strengths, weaknesses, and key areas for improvement. The ratings and feedback are provided by experienced scouts that have evaluated thousands of female and male youth players on their potential to play NCAA Division I College Hockey.

The service costs $25 per 10-minute video segment, with a minimum charge of one segment, and analysis time is doubled when applying the 2x multiplier. To ensure meaningful insights, videos must capture full shifts with game flow, be filmed with a wide-angle view, and include both good and poor plays against opponents of equal or higher caliber. Skaters are required to submit at least 10 complete shifts across separate games, while goalies must show full defensive zone sequences with a variety of shot situations. For best results, players are encouraged to use visual markers (arrows or circles) to identify themselves in the footage. By meeting these standards, athletes can maximize the value of their ChampsEyeQ analysis and gain actionable guidance to elevate their performance.

ChampsEyeQ Results Analysis and Implications:

Based on the Champs App Infographics and multi-year analysis on how many AAA players in North America typically play Division I women’s ice hockey, we estimate the Top 20% of female players play at that level. Therefore, the ChampsEyeQ rating system tries to estimate what rating as of June 15^th of a player’s sophomore year will be in the Top 20%. As we analyze more players and track their progression over time, we will continually adjust the Top 20% rating benchmark up or down based on the holistic view of the player ratings and their careers.

For example, if a player’s age in their video is still 9 months from their June 15^th deadline and have a rating slightly below the Top 20% benchmark, the ChampsEyeQ video analysis can help that player prioritize the key attributes to focus their development on for the current season.

Video Submission Guidelines for ChampsEyeQ Analysis – Read Before Starting

Critical Requirements:

• Only submit 1 game per video (you can add multiple videos if needed)

• Depending on the length of the video(s), it is fine to submit shifts from more than 1 game

• Videos should show COMPLETE SHIFTS edited down to when player is on ice

• Shifts should be longer than 20 seconds (unless a major event occurs during short shift)

• Opponent should be at least the same rating as your team, or higher

• Pick a typical game – avoid extraordinary performances (e.g., don’t show hat trick games)

• Include ALL plays during shifts – both good and poor performance

• Wide camera angle showing game flow and context

• Each video should be from separate games

• If you cheat, you are only cheating yourself

Skater Requirements:

• Minimum: 10 complete shifts across all videos

• Must show complete full shifts with game flow

• Camera must capture wide view showing all players (Note: LiveBarn “AUTO” is preferred over “PANO”)

• Highly recommend using graphics (arrows/circles) to identify player

• Show flow of game throughout each shift, not just puck possession

TRy CHAMPS EYEQ Now

Goalie Requirements:

• Must show complete defensive zone sequences

• Include saves, goals against, and reactions to different shot types

• Wide view showing goalie in relation to other players

• Show shots from various ice locations with game flow visible

• Highly recommend using graphics (arrows/circles) to identify goalie

TRy CHAMPS EYEQ Now

Sample Report: Forward

Sample Video Submission for Analysis: Defense

TRy CHAMPS EYEQ Now

Women's Hockey

Introducing the FREE Champs App Digital Team Roster

Post author By Ray Tenenbaum
Post date August 11, 2025

Creating a professional, digital team roster has never been easier—perfect for showcasing your athletes to college coaches and scouts—and it’s completely FREE to use.

Why You’ll Love It

📋 Player Profiles & Stats – Summaries, stats, and full player pages.

📅 Live Schedule Updates – Scouts see your latest schedule to plan attendance.

🏒 Customizable Stats – Add skater & goalie stats with a pro look.

🔗 Single Share Link – Send one link to coaches and scouts before events.

💲 No Cost, No Catch – 100% free for teams, coaches, and players.

How It Works

Set up the roster – Add players’ emails, names, and jersey numbers.
Players manage their own profiles – It’s free for players too. And saves you time while keeping info current.
Add your team’s schedule – Update anytime; scouts see changes instantly.
Add player stats – Make your roster look polished and complete.
Share with coaches & scouts – A single link makes it simple.

Help Your Players Get Recruited

Players create their own FREE Champs App profile:

Ready to start?

Here are the instructions to add a Team Roster to your Champs App account:

How to Create & Start Editing Your FREE Champs App Team Roster

Coming This September…

📢 Automatic Weekly Roster Updates to Coaches – Based on your schedule, Champs App will send college coaches and scouts your roster automatically so they know exactly where and when you’re playing.
You control the coaches & scouts and timing of the updates.
Note: this will be a subscription service.