Utah — Mon Jun 20 13:02:26 EDT 2011

See Strength of Schedule for an explanation. There are three sos calculations: the 1st averages the opponents computer rating based on computer margin of victory "Reg In" and "ROM", the 2nd is similar to the first but instead of a simple average, it weighs games against stronger teams more heavily, and the 3rd is based on the RPI SOS formula used by the NCAA. This factor is not used in the power rating calculation.
Use the Report Scores link for both scores and missing games.
Rank Team Total SOS Ave SOS Wt Ave SOS RPI W L T Games Rnk Value Rnk Value Rnk Value 1 Lone Peak 8 1 68.05 1 39.42 1 0.60 2 6 0 2 Brighton, UT 15 2 67.71 2 38.40 4 0.57 10 5 0 3 Juan Diego CS 11 3 66.43 3 36.68 5 0.55 2 9 0 4 Bingham 22 4 66.03 5 36.36 2 0.59 17 4 1 5 Jordan, UT 14 5 65.73 4 36.57 6 0.55 8 6 0 6 Alta 21 6 65.63 7 35.46 3 0.58 20 0 1 7 Olympus 16 7 65.15 6 35.72 8 0.53 10 6 0 8 Park City 15 8 65.00 8 35.44 7 0.54 8 7 0 9 Copper Hills 12 9 63.49 10 33.34 10 0.52 6 6 0 10 Riverton 13 10 63.32 11 32.98 15 0.50 9 4 0 11 Skyline, UT 13 11 63.25 9 33.67 14 0.51 7 6 0 12 Judge Memorial CS 15 12 62.96 12 32.93 12 0.51 8 7 0 13 Murray 12 13 62.33 13 31.87 21 0.46 3 9 0 14 West Jordan 12 14 61.96 14 31.01 9 0.52 1 11 0 15 Woods Cross 11 15 61.91 15 30.78 23 0.44 0 11 0 16 Bountiful 11 16 61.04 16 29.95 27 0.42 1 10 0 17 West, UT 13 17 60.34 17 28.56 11 0.52 3 10 0 18 Lehi 13 18 60.00 18 28.26 16 0.50 3 10 0 19 Waterford, UT 14 19 59.20 21 27.46 17 0.49 9 5 0 20 Sky View 13 20 59.18 19 27.70 20 0.46 3 10 0 21 Pleasant Grove 12 21 59.06 20 27.52 18 0.48 5 7 0 22 Viewmont 13 22 58.60 23 26.58 13 0.51 9 4 0 23 Cache Valley 12 23 58.51 22 27.02 28 0.42 5 7 0 24 Timpview 12 24 58.06 24 25.98 22 0.44 4 8 0 25 Herriman 13 25 57.44 25 25.41 25 0.43 4 9 0 26 Orem 14 26 56.83 26 24.67 19 0.47 11 3 0 27 Davis, UT 12 27 56.43 27 24.24 26 0.42 8 4 0 28 Weber 13 28 56.43 28 24.18 24 0.43 9 4 0
Create a free lacrosse website