Changes in Teams' Computer Rankings from 2013 to 2014

Changes in computer ratings and rankings were computed for teams in NCAA men's and women's Divisions I, II, and III. Only teams that played in both years and in the same division were included. However, ranks were not altered to account for the deletions necessary to balance the lists. The teams with greatest positive change in computer ranking from 2013 to 2014 were as follows:


Men's Division IMen's Division IIMen's Division III
Saint Joseph's
Rutgers
Canisius
Lenoir-Rhyne
Florida Southern
Tampa
Mount Olive
Hanover
DePauw
Whittier
Morrisville State
Elmhurst
Endicott

Women's Division IWomen's Division IIWomen's Division III
Marquette
Harvard
Vermont
Lehigh
Boston College
Bryant
Mount Olive
Davenport
Fort Lewis
Meredith
Baldwin Wallace
Roger Williams
Emerson
Canton
Misercordia


The full tables can be accessed at the links below, which can also be found on the Special Reports & Analyses page, which has tables for prior years as well. Of related interest on this page is Team Computer Ratings Over Time, which has normalized computer ratings for the last 10 years in both tabular and graphic form.

MD1 MD2 MD3

WD1 WD2 WD3

Notes:

Power rating (PR) change takes into account differences in the mean (arithmetic average) PR and the standard deviation between the two years and therefore cannot be derived by subtracting the 2013 and 2014 ratings shown in the tables at the links above.

Greater change is naturally possible (and in fact probable) in the divisions having more teams. If they change, teams ranked near the extremes last year obviously have only one way to go if they change; those teams can also change the most.

Teams are ordered in descending order by change in PR rank and then by change in PR. Although the correlation between the change in rank and ratings is generally quite high, you will spot occasional anomalies.

Change in record (won-lost percentage) does not correlate as highly with change in PR rating or rank, in large part because the PRs account for strength of schedule. So, for example, a team could improve its record and fall in PR rating/rank by facing a weaker slate of opponents, and, of course, the converse happens as well.

2014-05-23



Create a free lacrosse website