2006 Intercollegiate Championship Tournament

Date:	Friday, April 7, 2006 – Saturday, April 8, 2006
Location:	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 2

Team	W–L	%	Points	TUH	P	TU	I	PPB	PP20TUH
Princeton	9–4	69.2%	3365	296	24	108	30	15.72	227.36
U of Rochester	8–5	61.5%	3315	300	28	109	31	14.31	221.00
Williams A	8–5	61.5%	2900	281	21	94	27	15.48	206.41
Carleton College	7–6	53.8%	2940	274	15	108	9	13.66	214.60
Yale	7–6	53.8%	2965	292	18	109	35	14.02	203.08
Chicago B	7–6	53.8%	2505	268	22	93	38	12.48	186.94
North Carolina	6–7	46.2%	2545	290	17	100	37	12.72	175.52
Vanderbilt	5–8	38.5%	2385	298	14	96	38	12.77	160.07

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

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 3/4

Team	W–L	%	Points	TUH	P	TU	I	PPB	PP20TUH
Georgia	10–3	76.9%	2690	276	17	102	24	12.90	194.93
Columbia	9–4	69.2%	3235	294	19	123	40	13.52	220.07
Johns Hopkins	8–5	61.5%	2500	292	8	107	13	11.96	171.23
Carleton College	7–6	53.8%	2785	286	15	104	24	13.78	194.76
Vanderbilt	7–6	53.8%	2375	283	9	99	24	12.69	167.84
Broward	7–6	53.8%	1935	294	16	79	22	10.68	131.63
Coastal Alabama - South	6–7	46.2%	1960	285	10	83	31	12.20	137.54
Grinnell	5–8	38.5%	2125	289	16	86	18	10.93	147.06

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

Pool 7/8

Team	W–L	%	Points	TUH	P	TU	I	PPB	PP20TUH
Southern Virginia	8–5	61.5%	2100	289	11	95	27	10.57	145.33
Louisiana-Lafayette	5–8	38.5%	1705	291	14	75	15	9.21	117.18
Bevill-Jasper	5–8	38.5%	1365	292	6	73	16	7.91	93.49
Emory-Oxford	5–8	38.5%	1135	292	9	58	19	7.69	77.74
Snead State	3–10	23.1%	1470	291	17	64	25	8.64	101.03
State College-Manatee	2–11	15.4%	1020	281	2	62	16	7.03	72.60
Hamline	2–11	15.4%	885	302	4	55	6	5.17	58.61
Cloud County CC	1–12	7.7%	535	289	2	35	19	6.76	37.02

Explanation of Statistics

Confused about all these statistics? We’ve prepared an overview.

Read