The CIS Blog Top 10: Jan. 19, 2009

It's the latest edition of The CIS Blog Top 10 for men's and women's basketball, volleyball, and hockey. Rankings are based on RPI and are explained here. Anyone with questions about the methodology is encouraged to click that link.

Some notes:

  • The Ottawa men move up to #4 in the hoops rankings. Not quite #2 in this yet.

  • The SFU women fell slightly behind Windsor, but it's worth pointing out that the Clan have typically outscored their opponents by a bit more than the Lancers, and by much more than the U of S. (In fact, by another measure, the top 5 are SFU-Windsor-Alberta-Victoria-Dal.)

  • Some winter tournament scores are now in for men's volleyball; credit to our Andrew Bucholtz for chasing those down.



MEN'S BASKETBALL
1. Carleton (20-1), .625
2. UBC (18-2), .611
3. Victoria (14-6), .593
4. Ottawa (20-3), .573
5. Trinity Western (13-5), .566
6. StFX (17-4), .560
7. Western (13-5), .559
8. Toronto (11-8), .556
9. Windsor (11-6), .545
10. Simon Fraser (11-7), .543


WOMEN'S BASKETBALL
1. Saskatchewan (18-3), .620
2. Windsor (21-2), .601
3. Simon Fraser (19-1), .599
4. Victoria (13-7), .595
5. Alberta (23-5), .578
6. Memorial (11-5), .564
7. Regina (19-8), .558
8. Dalhousie (12-4), .553
t-9. Toronto (14-9), .552
t-9. Laval (11-5), .552


MEN'S HOCKEY
1. UNB, .571
2. Laurier, .565
3. Lakehead, .557
4. Saint Mary's, .550
5. Alberta, .544
6. Moncton, .543
7. UQTR, .542
8. Acadia, .534
9. StFX, .533
10. Saskatchewan, .530


WOMEN'S HOCKEY (no pre-season results)
1. Laurier, .590
2. McGill, .582
3. Moncton, .575
4. Manitoba, .574
5. Alberta, .555
6. StFX, .545
7. Guelph, .535
8. Toronto, .525
9. St. Thomas, .508
10. Dalhousie, .507


MEN'S VOLLEYBALL (no pre-season results)
1. Alberta (14-0), .633
2. Laval (17-0), .585
3. Calgary (11-3), .581
4. Dalhousie (15-2), .575
t-5. Trinity Western (7-5), .569
t-5. McMaster (12-3), .569
7. Queen's (16-6), .567
8. UBC (6-6), .549
9. Western (13-6), .538
10. Guelph (9-8), .532


WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL (regular-season results only)
1. Montreal (17-0), .635
2. Western (12-2), .614
3. Calgary (11-3), .594
4. Laval (12-5), .593
5. McMaster (12-2), .579
6. York (13-0), .573
7. Alberta (12-4), .570
8. Manitoba (11-5), .564
9. McGill (11-6), .562
10. Trinity Western (9-5), .551


If you'd like to see the complete list for any sport listed here, send me an e-mail (contact info here).
Next PostNewer Post Previous PostOlder Post Home

2 comments:

  1. Both of the volleyball rankings are quite interesting. The top of the women's side might be a little unbalanced, though, especially with the Western teams being so low (likely because they all beat up on each other). Here's some historical results of conference strength for what they're worth. Since the championship started in 1970, only seven non-Western teams have won. Three of those have been Quebec teams this decade, which suggests that power might be shifting, but there's a good reason the coaches still rank seven western women's teams in the top 10 (with Laval at 8 and York at 10). It's a similar idea on the men's side, as I've talked about before, (and I actually took a more detailed look at that dominance and the reasons behind it last year), but there the RPI seems to match up with my judgement of the Western teams a bit better, and it rates Trinity and UBC very well indeed considering their record. Any thoughts on why the two differ so much, Rob?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, there was a slight change just made to the volleyball rankings--apparently there was a AUS-Quebec interlock tournament back in November and it threw off the home-field advantage. Upshot is the Martlets and Vert et Or drop on the women's side.

    As for your question, I thought it might be margin of victory, which RPI ignores, but another system that doesn't ignore it actually puts Montreal-York-Western-Mac-Laval in the top 5.

    So it might just be the lack of inter-conference games working against us here. Those exist (for example, Calgary played Western in Florida) but it just takes time to track down the scores.

    ReplyDelete