2006 Intercollegiate Championship Tournament
Date: |
Friday, April 7, 2006 – Saturday, April 8, 2006 |
Host: |
University of Maryland-College Park (College Park, MD) |
Division I Pool 1
Teams are ordered within each pool based on their performance. The order of finish within each pool may depend on tiebreaker games not shown. Ranks for the tournament as a whole are displayed on the Standings tab.
Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
UC Berkeley | 13–0 | 100.0% | 5415 | 299 | 48 |
132 |
35 | 19.72 | 362.21 |
---|
Illinois | 12–1 | 92.3% | 4910 | 307 | 57 |
115 |
32 | 17.82 | 319.87 |
---|
Chicago A | 10–3 | 76.9% | 4235 | 309 | 48 |
104 |
31 | 17.30 | 274.11 |
---|
VCU | 10–3 | 76.9% | 3520 | 303 | 33 |
108 |
21 | 14.54 | 232.34 |
---|
Stanford | 8–5 | 61.5% | 3320 | 288 | 17 |
104 |
9 | 17.11 | 230.56 |
---|
Virginia | 8–5 | 61.5% | 3080 | 274 | 32 |
95 |
32 | 14.37 | 224.82 |
---|
Brown | 7–6 | 53.8% | 2890 | 297 | 31 |
91 |
25 | 13.55 | 194.61 |
---|
UCLA | 6–7 | 46.2% | 3570 | 298 | 23 |
112 |
16 | 16.19 | 239.60 |
---|
Pool 3
Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
Texas | 8–5 | 61.5% | 3245 | 299 | 28 |
105 |
27 | 14.36 | 217.06 |
---|
Michigan | 8–5 | 61.5% | 2665 | 294 | 22 |
100 |
36 | 12.62 | 181.29 |
---|
Texas A&M | 7–6 | 53.8% | 2920 | 283 | 27 |
95 |
20 | 13.65 | 206.36 |
---|
Dartmouth | 6–7 | 46.2% | 2550 | 293 | 17 |
97 |
34 | 13.11 | 174.06 |
---|
Wisconsin | 6–7 | 46.2% | 2535 | 297 | 18 |
97 |
38 | 12.91 | 170.71 |
---|
Carnegie Mellon | 5–8 | 38.5% | 2540 | 285 | 15 |
101 |
26 | 12.37 | 178.25 |
---|
Harding | 4–9 | 30.8% | 1715 | 301 | 4 |
87 |
17 | 9.56 | 113.95 |
---|
Georgia | 2–11 | 15.4% | 1005 | 289 | 7 |
53 |
13 | 7.25 | 69.55 |
---|
Pool 4
Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
Rutgers | 8–5 | 61.5% | 2250 | 266 | 9 |
93 |
5 | 11.86 | 169.17 |
---|
Minnesota | 6–7 | 46.2% | 2260 | 272 | 11 |
96 |
23 | 11.68 | 166.18 |
---|
Florida | 5–8 | 38.5% | 1705 | 282 | 9 |
73 |
15 | 11.16 | 120.92 |
---|
McGill | 4–9 | 30.8% | 1775 | 280 | 16 |
69 |
19 | 11.06 | 126.79 |
---|
Ottawa | 4–9 | 30.8% | 1370 | 273 | 12 |
72 |
18 | 6.67 | 100.37 |
---|
Williams B | 3–10 | 23.1% | 985 | 230 | 5 |
54 |
12 | 7.41 | 85.65 |
---|
Simon Fraser | 1–12 | 7.7% | 1040 | 286 | 10 |
47 |
7 | 7.98 | 72.73 |
---|
USC | 0–13 | 0.0% | | | | | | | |
---|
Division II Pool 1/2
Teams are ordered within each pool based on their performance. The order of finish within each pool may depend on tiebreaker games not shown. Ranks for the tournament as a whole are displayed on the Standings tab.
Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
Harvard | 11–2 | 84.6% | 4500 | 296 | 35 |
123 |
21 | 18.04 | 304.05 |
---|
Stanford | 11–2 | 84.6% | 4275 | 286 | 38 |
116 |
42 | 17.89 | 298.95 |
---|
Caltech | 11–2 | 84.6% | 3640 | 297 | 35 |
116 |
34 | 14.07 | 245.12 |
---|
Amherst | 10–3 | 76.9% | 3375 | 287 | 27 |
108 |
22 | 14.81 | 235.19 |
---|
Princeton B | 9–4 | 69.2% | 2715 | 298 | 20 |
106 |
36 | 12.18 | 182.21 |
---|
Princeton A | 8–5 | 61.5% | 3265 | 279 | 20 |
113 |
20 | 14.55 | 234.05 |
---|
Florida State | 7–6 | 53.8% | 2655 | 290 | 26 |
92 |
33 | 12.80 | 183.10 |
---|
Michigan | 7–6 | 53.8% | 2575 | 292 | 20 |
94 |
29 | 12.98 | 176.37 |
---|
Pool 5/6
Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
George Washington | 7–6 | 53.8% | 2200 | 283 | 19 |
87 |
10 | 10.33 | 155.48 |
---|
UCLA | 7–6 | 53.8% | 2100 | 277 | 16 |
89 |
22 | 10.29 | 151.62 |
---|
Maryland | 6–7 | 46.2% | 2635 | 283 | 28 |
92 |
19 | 11.58 | 186.22 |
---|
Virginia | 6–7 | 46.2% | 2120 | 276 | 16 |
82 |
22 | 11.94 | 153.62 |
---|
Oklahoma | 6–7 | 46.2% | 1825 | 296 | 10 |
86 |
26 | 9.84 | 123.31 |
---|
Chicago | 5–8 | 38.5% | 2180 | 282 | 27 |
70 |
27 | 12.47 | 154.61 |
---|
Oklahoma State | 4–9 | 30.8% | 2010 | 288 | 11 |
84 |
27 | 12.00 | 139.58 |
---|
Valencia | 3–10 | 23.1% | 1160 | 290 | 12 |
59 |
43 | 8.52 | 80.00 |
---|
Explanation of Statistics
Confused about all these statistics? We’ve prepared an overview.
Read