UPDATED: 04-23-26 10:35 PDT

boys Hopkinton 1
  
Hopkinton             
W-L: ( 2- 2) PR = 91.0621

Schedule/Results All Games

Date Opponent Conf/State (W-L, PR) Score 413 A Bishop Brady ( 1- 2, 89.5) 12-11 415 H Campbell ( 2- 3, 91.4) 5- 7 420 H Coe-Brown ( 5- 0, 98.7) 4-14 421 A ConVal ( 2- 1, 92.2) 14-13 423 H Bishop Brady ( 1- 2, 89.5) 504 H Plymouth Regional ( 4- 1, 95.8) 506 A John Stark ( 1- 3, 90.4) 507 H Kearsarge ( 1- 4, 85.8) 511 H Stevens ( 0- 3, 81.2) 515 A Trinity Manchester ( 1- 3, 89.4) 520 A Kennett ( 2- 1, 90.2) 522 A Gilford ( 2- 2, 91.2) 526 H Laconia ( 3- 2, 92.2) 528 A Pelham ( 2- 2, 90.0)

PREDICTION LIST

               -------------------------------------
               |Real   = actual goal margin        |
               |Pred   = predicted goal margin     |
               |+      = slightly above prediction |
               |++     = above prediction          |
               |+++    = well above prediction     |
               |-      = slightly below prediction |
               |--     = below prediction          |
               |---    = well below prediction     |
               |Goals* = Goals over (+) under (-)  |
               |         prediction. N/A when ten  |
               |         goal limit is exceeded    |
               |n/a    = Outside division          |
               -------------------------------------


   Date  Opponent               Score     Real Pred    +/-   Goals*
   413 A Bishop Brady           12-11       1     2          -0.51
   415 H Campbell                5- 7      -2     0          -1.69
   420 H Coe-Brown               4-14     -10    -8           0.00
   421 A ConVal                 14-13       1    -1    +      2.20

UNDER-ACHIEVED GAMES

   Date  Opponent               Score     Real Pred    +/-   Goals*

OVER-ACHIEVED GAMES

   Date  Opponent               Score     Real Pred    +/-   Goals*
   421 A ConVal                 14-13       1    -1    +      2.20

Hopkinton PairWisePlus Evaluation

The team that earns the point in the pair-wise comparison is based on three criteria: 
first is head-to-head, the winner gets the point, however, if they did not play each
other, than it considers w-l versus common opponents. If their records are tied or they
have no common opponents, than the tie-breaker becomes the better power rating.
The Common Opponent Point list in the table below has the record of the winner followed by the
record of the loser for all common opponents
Opponent Who Gets
the Point?
Head-2-Head
Point
Common Opponent
Point
Power Rating
Point
Alvirne Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Bedford Bedford   Bedford
Bishop Brady Hopkinton Hopkinton  
Bishop Guertin Bishop Guertin   Bishop Guertin
Bow Bow tied -  1- 0 Bow
Campbell Campbell Campbell  
Coe-Brown Coe-Brown Coe-Brown  
Concord Hopkinton   Hopkinton
ConVal Hopkinton Hopkinton  
Derryfield Derryfield   Derryfield
Dover Dover   Dover
Exeter HS Exeter HS   Exeter HS
Gilford Hopkinton Hopkinton   1- 0 vs 0- 1
Goffstown Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Hanover Hanover   Hanover
Hollis-Brookline Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Inter-Lakes-Moultonb Inter-Lakes-Moultonb   Inter-Lakes-Moultonb
John Stark Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Kearsarge Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Keene-Monadnock Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Kennett Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Kingswood Kingswood   Kingswood
Laconia Laconia tied -  0- 2 Laconia
Lebanon Lebanon Lebanon   1- 0 vs 0- 1
Londonderry Londonderry   Londonderry
Manchester Memorial- Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Merrimack Merrimack   Merrimack
Merrimack Valley Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Milford Hopkinton tied -  0- 1 Hopkinton
Nashua North Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Nashua South Nashua South   Nashua South
Oyster River-Newmark Oyster River-Newmark   Oyster River-Newmark
Pelham Hopkinton tied -  0- 1 Hopkinton
Pembroke Academy Hopkinton Hopkinton   1- 0 vs 0- 1
Pinkerton Academy Pinkerton Academy   Pinkerton Academy
Plymouth Regional Plymouth Regional Plymouth Regional   1- 1 vs 0- 2
Portsmouth Portsmouth   Portsmouth
Salem Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Souhegan Souhegan Souhegan   1- 0 vs 0- 1
Spaulding Hopkinton   Hopkinton
St Thomas Aquinas Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Stevens Hopkinton   Hopkinton
Timberlane Timberlane   Timberlane
Trinity Manchester Hopkinton Hopkinton   1- 0 vs 0- 1
Windham Windham   Windham
Winnacunnet Winnacunnet   Winnacunnet

PairWisePlus = 22


division Games Only
Average number of games used in Games Correction = 3.83

 Date  Opponent          (W-L  PR)      SCORE       SAFE        SAFE       Home       No Games           SCI              
                                                    Loss        Win       Field      Correction         Points            
                                                    SLP         SWP     Advantage      Factor                       
                                                      
   0 A Bishop Brady    ( 1- 2, 89.5)    12-11      -10.39       8.34       0.04         0.96             8.03
   0 H Campbell        ( 2- 3, 91.4)     5- 7       -8.48      10.25      -0.04         0.96            -8.16
   0 H Coe-Brown       ( 5- 0, 98.7)     4-14       -1.24      17.49      -0.04         0.96            -1.23
   0 A ConVal          ( 2- 1, 92.2)    14-13       -7.68      11.05       0.04         0.96            10.62
                                                                                                        ------
                                                                                                         9.25

winning pts = 18.6450 losing points = -9.3947

             SCI ={(SLP or SLW) +/- home-field advantage} * Game Correction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| (W-L PR) = Won-loss record and power rating |
| SCORE = game score |
| SAFE Loss (SLP) = Points deducted for losing to the opponent |
| SAFE Win (SWP) = Points awarded for defeating the opponent |
| Home-field Advantage = goals deducted/awarded for site |
| No games correction = normalzation based on a ~16 game schedule |
------------------------------------------------------------------------