2013-2014 KRACH Ratings
KRACH is endorsed by College Hockey News as the best system to objectively rank teams. It stands for "Ken's Ratings for American College Hockey", because it was a statistician named Ken Butler who first implemented the methodology for college hockey.
Note: The ratings are immediately updated as results come in. For more, see below the chart or view the FAQ.
| Rk | Team | KRACH | Record | Sched Strength | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rating | RRWP | Rk | W-L-T | Pct | Ratio | Rk | SOS | ||
| 1 | North Dakota | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 2 | Niagara | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 3 | Northeastern | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 4 | Northern Michigan | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 5 | Ohio State | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 6 | Notre Dame | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 7 | New Hampshire | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 8 | Nebraska-Omaha | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 9 | Michigan Tech | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 10 | Michigan State | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 11 | Minnesota | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 12 | Minnesota State | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 13 | Minnesota-Duluth | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 14 | Penn State | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 15 | Princeton | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 16 | Union | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 17 | St. Lawrence | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 18 | Vermont | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 19 | Western Michigan | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 20 | Yale | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 21 | Wisconsin | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 22 | St. Cloud State | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 23 | Sacred Heart | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 24 | Quinnipiac | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 25 | Providence | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 26 | Rensselaer | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 27 | RIT | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 28 | Robert Morris | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 29 | Michigan | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 30 | Miami | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 31 | Boston University | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 32 | Boston College | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 33 | Bowling Green | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 34 | Brown | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 35 | Clarkson | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 36 | Canisius | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 37 | Bentley | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 38 | Bemidji State | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 39 | Alaska-Fairbanks | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 40 | Alabama-Huntsville | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 41 | Alaska-Anchorage | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 42 | American Int'l | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 43 | Army | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 44 | Colgate | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 45 | Colorado College | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 46 | Maine | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 47 | Lake Superior | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 48 | Mass.-Lowell | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 49 | Massachusetts | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 50 | Merrimack | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 51 | Mercyhurst | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 52 | Holy Cross | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 53 | Harvard | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 54 | Cornell | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 55 | Connecticut | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 56 | Dartmouth | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 57 | Denver | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 58 | Ferris State | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| 59 | Air Force | 0.0 | .0000 | 1t | 0-0-0 | .0000 | .000 | 1t | 0.0 |
| RRWP | Round Robin Winning Percentage. A team's theoretical winning percentage would be if you played every other team, one time each. |
| Ratio | The Ratio of wins to losses (as opposed to Win %, which is wins divided by games). |
| SOS | Strength of Schedule |
Note: For the purposes of NCAA eligibility (and therefore KRACH), a team's record is based only on games against other Division I hockey schools which are eligible for the NCAA Tournament.
KRACH Explained
As explained above, KRACH is the implementation of a sophisticated mathematical model known as the Bradley-Terry rating system, first applied to college hockey by a statistician named Ken Butler. While the model is sophisticated, and needs a computer to calculate, its essential meaning is actually quite simple.
The key to understanding KRACH is understanding that it's calculated recursively, so that the end result is self-evident by the results. In other words, if you took one team's schedule to date, and played a theoretical "game" for each game already actually played, using the KRACH ratings themselves in order to predict the winner, then the end result would be a theoretical won-loss percentage that matches the team's actual won-loss percentage. Pretty cool.
It is not possible to do any better than that with a completely objective method. Any other method introduces arbitrary-ness and/or subjectivity.
(See the FAQ for a more complete explanation.)
More detailed explanations of the KRACH ratings can be found under the following links


NCAA Tournament Info