Cleveland Suburban Hockey League
Cleveland Suburban Hockey League 2011-2012 Wednesday, May 22, 2013  
 
 
printer friendly page


2010 CSHL RPI Rankings Version 3-FINAL
1 If a coach is not happy with his placement, he should talk to his program head about filing a petition.      
2 The deadline for filing a petition is very tight, Monday night 8pm, so do not delay.              
3 The level breakdowns are done by computer to minimize the aggregate spread between           
  the 1st and last team in each proposed level.                  
                             
  Exclamation Point (!) after Rank indicates move of 4 or more spots up or down.              
  V3 Rankings include 513 games out of total of 531 (97%)              
CSHL MITE RPI V3-FINAL (10-24-10)
39 Teams
V3-Rev 8-9-8-7-7 (changed fr 6 levels to 5 levels) [See Below]              
            V3 6-7-6-7-7-6              
            V2   7-6-6-6-8-6              
MW Scaled Walkush Scaled RPI Rank   Last Week Rank   TEAM W L T AGD SCHED Midwest Raw Walkush Raw
9.82 9.29 9.55 1   1 AA 101 Winterhurst M1 7 0 0 7.42 9.92 17.34 9.29
8.67 8.53 8.60 2   2 AA 105 Rocky River M1 5 1 0 2 11.2 13.2 8.53
8.24 8.56 8.40 3   3 AA 102 Strongsville M1 3 3 1 0.42 11.24 11.66 8.56
8.16 8.25 8.21 4   7 AA 104 Gilmour M1 5 2 1 1.5 9.89 11.39 8.25
7.79 8.36 8.07 5   5 AA 109 Columbus Capitals M1 5 1 1 3.42 6.61 10.03 8.36
8.03 8.09 8.06 6   4 AA 108 Cleveland Hts M1 3 3 0 1.33 9.57 10.9 8.09
7.88 7.87 7.88 7   8 AA 106 Shaker Hts M1 Petition to AA-Approved 4 1 2 1.71 8.65 10.36 7.87
7.80 7.81 7.80 8   6 AA 107 Cleveland Skating Club M1 Petition to AA-Approved 3 4 1 0.5 9.58 10.08 7.81
7.01 7.57 7.29 9   10 A1 111 Mentor M1 3 4 0 0 7.23 7.23 7.57
6.93 7.11 7.02 10   9 A1 110 North Olmsted M1 4 3 1 0 6.95 6.95 7.11
6.63 6.32 6.47 11   11 A1 103 Elyria M1 0 6 1 -5.71 11.56 5.85 6.32
6.01 6.85 6.43 12   15 A1 114 Wooster M1 4 3 0 1.14 2.51 3.65 6.85
6.36 6.44 6.40 13   12 A1 118 Parma M1 3 2 0 1.8 3.09 4.89 6.44
5.93 6.58 6.26 14   14 A1 119 Parma M2 6 3 1 2.9 0.46 3.36 6.58
5.96 6.36 6.16 15   16 A1 112 Columbus Blue Jackets M1 4 4 0 -0.87 4.34 3.47 6.36
5.83 6.37 6.10 16   13 A1 113 Winterhurst M2 3 4 1 -0.5 3.47 2.97 6.37
5.47 6.59 6.03 17   17 A1 116 Strongsville M2 1 5 0 -2.66 4.36 1.7 6.59
5.44 6.20 5.82 18   18 A2 122 Canton-Akron M1 5 2 0 2.28 -0.68 1.6 6.20
5.19 6.25 5.72 19   19 A2 117 Rocky River M2 3 5 0 -2.75 3.44 0.69 6.25
4.68 5.48 5.08 20   20 A2 120 Gilmour M2 3 4 0 -0.71 -0.43 -1.14 5.48
4.46 5.43 4.95 21   22 A2 115 Tri-County M1 1 8 0 -5.77 3.82 -1.95 5.43
4.69 5.06 4.87 22   23 A2 124 Geauga M2 7 1 0 4.37 -5.49 -1.12 5.06
4.27 4.90 4.59 23   21 A2 123 Geauga M1 2 4 0 -0.33 -2.29 -2.62 4.90
4.52 3.90 4.21 24   24 A2 128 Shaker Hts M2 5 1 0 5.5 -7.23 -1.73 3.90
4.16 3.88 4.02 25   25 A2 121 Cleveland Hts M2 2 3 0 -1.4 -1.62 -3.02 3.88
3.65 3.40 3.53 26   28 A3 127 Winterhurst M3 Petition to move down Approved 3 3 0 -0.33 -4.52 -4.85 3.40
3.12 3.59 3.36 27   26 A3 133 Mentor M2 4 1 0 3 -9.76 -6.76 3.59
3.41 3.12 3.26 28   27 A3 129 Euclid M1 4 1 0 3 -8.74 -5.74 3.12
2.76 2.66 2.71 29   32 A3 130 Elyria M2 4 3 0 0.71 -8.79 -8.08 2.66
2.48 2.13 2.30 30   30 A3 134 Canton-Akron M2 4 2 0 3.16 -12.24 -9.08 2.13
2.30 2.23 2.27 31   31 A3 126 Rocky River M3 1 6 0 -4 -5.73 -9.73 2.23
2.24 2.19 2.21 32   29 A3 138 Gilmour M3 3 3 0 2.33 -12.28 -9.95 2.19
2.26 1.90 2.08 33   33 B 125 Parma M3 Petition to move down Approved 2 5 0 -4.28 -5.58 -9.86 1.90
2.16 1.18 1.67 34 ! 39 B 131 North Olmsted M2 1 3 0 -4.75 -5.47 -10.22 1.18
0.95 1.43 1.19 35   35 B 140 Winterhurst M4 5 4 0 -1.33 -13.26 -14.59 1.43
1.02 1.28 1.15 36   34 B 132 Tri-County M2 1 5 0 -5.16 -9.17 -14.33 1.28
0.91 1.32 1.12 37   36 B 136 Garfield M1 2 3 0 -1.8 -12.93 -14.73 1.32
0.56 0.87 0.72 38   38 B 135 Cleveland Hts M3 1 4 0 -2.4 -13.59 -15.99 0.87
0.18 0.00 0.09 39   37 B 139 Rocky River M4 0 6 0 -4.5 -12.87 -17.37 0.00
                             
                           
                           
Note: Because of various factors, including the petitions filed, the appropriate number of games, the talent breaks between levels and coaches and head of program suggestions,
the board reviewed a 5 level mite division and compared it to the 6 level division shown in RPI-V2 and -V3.  Our analysis showed a 5 level division divided the teams up more fairly and was a better fit for the mites.  It also happened to effectively grant all 4 mite petitions.
 
 
 

 
Powered By ITSportsnet